JDG

O.k., Ralph Wilson *should* sell the naming right to the Stadium. But let's please not blow the naming rights issue out of proportion. Naming rights would get Ralph Wilson a couple million per year. The new revenue sharing pool that the Bills are at a risk of not qualifying for, would be about $10 million per year. The gap in revenue between Buffalo and Washington approaches $100 million per year. This seems naiive to me. If I'm a suit in the NFL office, I'm looking at a League that is really pretty well maxed out at 32 teams. I see one of those teams sitting in a market with a tiny fraction of Los Angeles, and less popuation than some other markets, and I see that same team sitting in a market with a heck of a lot less money than a lot of other markets. And I'm thinking that while moving the Bills today would be traumatic, 10, 20, 30 years from now I know it will have produced a lot more money, and Buffalo will go the way of the Canton Bulldogs. Moreover, looking at the numbers and the trends, I'm also thinking that moving the Bills at some point is nearly inevitable as the total income of the Buffalo market continues to fall further and further behind other markets - so why not get it over with as quickly as possible? One thing that could easily settle this would be for Greg Aiello, or some other NFL spokesman to say flat out - "We want the Bills to stay in Buffalo." I haven't heard it yet. I presume you disagree with Clayton on that point, then? While I agree that the text of the qualifyers has probably only been forwarded to the Bills recently, that certainly doesn't mean that the outline of the qualifyers wasn't becoming apparent at the time of voting. I think that the NFL suits and the rich-club owners knew exactly what they were doing, Ralph was on to them at the time, and now the lawyers have only filtered down the specific language - as bad as it is. JDG

You can't seriously believe this. Ralph Wilson isn't worried about making *more* money *after* he's dead!!!! That's patently absurd. What Ralph Wilson is pissed-off about is that the big-money owners apparently inserted some poison pills into their paltry new revenue sharing agreement that appear on the face of them to be targeted at making the Bills unviable in Buffalo. Its a shame that the national media, ala Peter King and John Clayton haven't recognized this. Its a tragedy that even some Bills fans can't see it. JDG

It is one of the better articles that Clayton has written - just because I'm not sure that he has ever written anything terirbly intelligent. Clayton keeps bringing up the new revenue sharing deal, but fails to point out that the new revenue sharing money is a paltry $9-10 million per team at a time when the gap between teams is around $100 million. Clayton then goes on to be completely disingenious by not raising the topic of the qualifyers. Ralph went to the media this week because of the qualifyers. If Clayton is going to smack down Wilson in public, he could at least do the courtesy of mentioning the core of Wilson's argument. No surprise that Clayton blew it, though.... Clayton raises Green Bay as a successful small market without ever mentioning that Green Bay essentially controls the Milwaukee market, which is bigger, and has much more corporate wealth than, the Buffalo market. JDG

In 2006, television money from ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC, and DirecTV will be $116.8 million. That's an increase from $81.3 million under the old TV deals. That's good money, but the 2007 Salary Cap is already projected to be nearly $110 million. JDG

I seem to remember sitting in my room in Cleveland, watching Bob Costas point out that Art Modell was receiving more in TV money than the amount of the salary cap. So I don't believe that the above is accurate. What you neglect is that given an assumption of increasing revenues (and thus an increasing cap), the actual "spending cap" for a given year, over the long term, is a percentage higher than the actual salary cap. In any event, as the Reskins, Cowboys, Giants, and Jets make more money than the Bills, that revenue is going to push the salary cap higher. I wouldn't count on the TV revenue being enough to cover player costs (let alone coaching, scouting, and equipment) forever. JDG

Kelly, The value of the Bills in 2004 was $700 million according to Forbes. The Redskins were worth $1.2 billion in the same year. So, let's say that Ralph Wilson goes to the big AFL in the sky, and his estate is selling the Bills in order to pay the massive capital gains and inheritance taxes. Tom Golisano partners with Danny Wegman and Jim Kelly as minority partners to pony up the $700 million in fair market value for the Bills. Now, let's say that some Los Angeles billionaire looks at the Bills, looks at market size that is several times the size of the combined Buffalo-Rochester-whatever metro area, looks at market that contains no less than 15 Fortune 500 companies, and says that the Bills would be worth $1.1 billion in Los Angeles, and offers a comparable amount? What then? Does Ralph Wilson's estate turn down $400 million dollars? Does the NFL allow Ralph Wilson's estate to do so? And the gap is only continuing to widen..... JDG

Kelly, what MBD was pointing out is that that is no longer any guarantee to be true. The Redskins brought in almost $100 million more in revenue than the Bills did in 2004, $245 mil to $154mil. Incredibly, that $154 million is about the same as the NY Giants and Jets. With new stadiums for them, the Giants and Jets should definitely soon be shooting up into Redskins territory. The Arizona Cardinals, who are currently last in the NFL in revenue, could also quickly move up the ranks with a new Stadium and a few winning seasons. If the Bills spend to the salary cap, the Bills would be spending 66% of their 2004 revenues. Of course, that doesn't count the amount of "cash over cap" that must be spent each year on signing bonuses, nor does it count coaches, administrators, scouts, and other support staff. It also doesn't count investment in training equipment, video material, and other material needs. With teams like the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals poised to move up the revenue rankings, all of that is going to increase the salary cap even further - and apparently it may increase the salary cap without necessarily producing much additional shared revenue per year. According to USA Today, even a best-case scenario under the revenue sharing arrangement Ralph Wilson voted against, the best a team could hope for would be about $9 or $10 million per year. When the gap in franchise revenues is $100 million, Ralph Wilson may be right in thinking that that is not quite enough. And of course, as has come out this weekend, the Bills might not even be getting that under the "qualifyers." JDG P.S. The Redskins' 2004 revenue was $245 million, and #2 was Dallas at $205 million. The Redskins and Cowboys are clearly working hard at building revenue, even if they do have a bigger market to work with than Buffalo.

Kelly, You and I have disagreed several times on this Board, sometimes on matter of legitimate opinion. You've rarely, if ever, however, been as spectacularly wrong as you are now. The NFL has been trying to line up a stadium deal in Los Angeles for a decade now, without any team to put there. Who do you think is pushing it? It ain't the small-market owners. Can you really serious believe that Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder wouldn't love to have a team in Los Angeles to boost league-wide revenues? Your theory about Snyder, Jones, Kraft & Co. wanting to spend the small markets into oblivion is particularly cockamanie given the most recent CBA agreement. It was the big-revenue teams that ultimately led the way towards reaching compromise on new revenue sharing and a new salary cap. If Daniel Snyder wanted to become the Yankees of football, and basically a permanent playoff presence, surely he would have been hoping for the salary cap to go away. Moreover, Los Angeles has several multiples the number of people of WNY. Just think of how many tickets at high prices could be sold at a shiny new football stadium in LA. And now imagine how much more luxury box revenue could be taken in by an LA franchise than a Buffalo franchise. And also how much more local TV advertisements and local radio rights could be sold for in LA than in Buffalo. Oh yes, and a team in LA would probably sell what - 2-3 times as much merchandise as a team in Buffalo? As for your other points - yes Daniel Snyder has done well by virtue of being in Washington... but he's also shown some business acumen about it. I don't think it is an absolute given that the NFL's Washington franchise would be the League's most-profitable. In fact, I think its kind of surprising. The Redskins' business success has also come about through some astute business management. And finally, I think it would be foolish to judge a market's appetite from football on the basis of their attendance at *another* city's teams' games being played on a temporary basis in that city, and in a down year for that team as well. A large part of what the NFL sells is "civic pride", and putting a few games of a lousy New Orleans' Saints team in San Antonio wasn't doing anything for the San Antonio market. JDG

Indeed, especially at his age, the tens of millions of dollars in profit, or whatever he takes in each year, pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions he could reap by "cashing out". JDG

I think its complicated. Basically, there are two features of any given lease that could tie the Bills to Buffalo - either Ralph could sign a lease for a very long time, or Ralph could sign a lease with a very high "buy-out" clause for breaking the lease, or some combination of the two. The problem is, the longer the length of the lease, the more willing the new owner of the Bills would be willing to step up and pay the "buy-out" clause. I am sure, however, that there are League rules against "poison pill" leases, just in the same way that the League gets to approve ownership sales. There may also be laws against "poison pill" leases - as any lease of a sufficiently long term becomes tantamount to ownership. Ultimately, Ralph Wilson may be able to finnagle the sale of the Bills to a local owner like Golisano over the League's objections... but the true *long-term* future of the Bills is absolutely contingent upon the political leaders of WNY arresting Buffalo's slide down the list of the nation's top metro areas. JDG

Sorry Kelly, But no way. First of all, Daniel Snyder is a fan, so he is willing to spend. He also understands, however, that winning sells. Moreover, he also understands that "buzz" in the form of high-priced free agents and coaches also sells. For all his spending, I believe that Daniel Snyder is currently running the most-profitable team in the NFL. So much for that theory. I think you are whistling in the graveyard if you continue to buy this line about LA fans not even caring. Even if you add up Buffalo, Rochester, Hamilton, Toronto, Syracuse, Binghamton, and whatever else you want to add in - Los Angeles is still almost *twice* that. That's a lot more money available on which to market the team - and a lot more shared revenue going into the other owners' pockets. Los Angeles lost their previous teams nearly a decade ago, a decade in which the area has grown by more than 10%. Moreover, the LA teams had dilapidated stadiums that were unattractive and much more importantly, *unprofitable.* Lastly, both teams got sweatheart deals from other markets in order to move. Put one of these new stadiums in LA, though, and just watch the team rake in the money. And Los Angeles isn't just the only market that wants a team (or two). San Antonio-Austin has wanted a team for over a decade. There's been periodic interest from Portland, Memphis, and even Norfolk-Virginia Beach. Finally, its worth remembering that Ralph Wilson bought the Bills from $25,000 and they are now worth $700 million. Most analyses don't see how any of the Wilsons could possibly afford the capital gains taxes on the Bills upon Ralph Wilson's death. That would mean that the Bills would go up for sale, and in that event, the other NFL owners get to approve the sale before it is finalized. Given how much more profitable the Bills would be in Los Angeles than Buffalo - I hope that Golisano has a good anti-trust lawyer. JDG

Kelly, For one thing, I think that a substantial majority of the NFL Owners view the League as being principally a business in which they should try and make every dollar they can. To the extent that good football allows them to make more money, they support good football. I think the fact that an expansion team in Los Angeles, which would completely wreck competitive balance in the League, is even being *considered* is pure evidence of that. If the Bills were a winner they would have at least a few prime time appearances, that's for sure - or at least a 4pm game or two. The NFL, however, I think would prefer to have a team that would merit primtime appearances even when the team is *not* winning. A team in Los Angeles, without question, would fit that criteria. Again, look at the Jets, a team whose prospects for the upcoming year is nearly identical to ours. Even better, look at Oakland - which is hardly a winner, and they have a whopping FOUR prime-time appearances... the Bills and their "Bills Backers" aren't even close to being in that league. Heck, even *Detroit* at least got one 4pm game this year (well, two if you count one 4pm game being played on the West Coast - but then again, Detroit is twice the size of Buffalo-Rochester) As for Canada, Niagara County in Ontario has only 410,000 people. If you include Hamilton, you get another half million to be sure - but does Hamilton even have a Bills beat reporter? Are the Bills games being regularly televised in Hamilton? I could be wrong, but I don't think so - and so I find it hard to believe that you can give much weight to Hamilton in the "Bills Market." I think the Bills' Canadian fan base can largely be accounted for by Niagara metro area would bes a mere 1/5th the size of the Los Angeles metro area.) So, taking the combined Buffalo-Rochester-Niagara,ON metro area, Buffalo still ends up being smaller than San Antonio-Austin, and not terribly far ahead of Sacramento-Stockton or Portland-Salem. Stock up the corporate presence in Buffalo-Rochester-Niagara, and Buffalo may even fall behind these markets. JDG

Wow, I can't believe that you and I have had such different reactions on this point. Reading articles like this one in the Buffalo News this weekend left me with this deeply sinking feeling that the NFL would like nothing more than to move the Bills once Ralph Wilson dies. I think the writing was on the wall with the very paltry revenue sharing deal that was initially approved by the owners, which provided for what - a max of $5 million of "sharing payments" from the top revenue teams, when the gap between the top and bottom teams is more like $100 million (and growing)? Now, some of these "qualifyers" in the revenue sharing deal look like pure anti-Buffalo poison pills. The bit about denying revenue sharing to "new owners" seems clearly directed at the NFL's oldest (or at least Ralph's one of the oldest) owners. The bit about ticket prices also seems clearly directed at the NFL franchise with the lowest average ticket prices. The NFL is filled with very smart businessmen. I am sure that those businessmen recognize that if consultants were coming in from Mars, and were looking to start a new sports League in the US with 32 franchises that Buffalo would be what, 50th? 75th? on the List? I think you are really underestimating the gap in market size between Buffalo and other cities, as well as the gargantuan gap in corporate presence between Buffalo and other markets. The Bills Backers clubs are nice - but the Bills Backers are comprised of what - mostly 1st Generation WNY expatriates? The size of Bills Backers clubs are probably just a time-lag function of the Buffalo population - and as we well know, Buffalo managed to pull off a decline during one of the most booming decades this country has ever known. Thinking truly long term, the NFL eventually wants to expand oversees - but there is probably a natural mathematical limit on the size of a football League, where human bodies can't take much more than a 20-game season. Its hard to see Buffalo beging a competitive pro sports market in 30 years just within the US, let alone in larger market. Most importantly of all, however, a larger market is going to generate more local home-grown fans, as well as more Backers clubs. As for TV ratings, you need no further disproof of your point than to look at our 2006 schedule with 16 1pm games. Not only are we not scheduled for the "B Showcase" of Monday Night football, but we're not scheduled for the first 10 or so installments of the "A Showcase" on Sunday night, and in fact, we're not even scheduled to be "in the mix" for the "C Showcase" of being the 4pm national game (ratings of which often approached those for MNF in past years.) And if you don't think that is all about market power, look no further than the NY Jets getting scheduled for a late-season MNF game in the "B Showcase." Sorry Kelly, but the simple truth of the matter is that the Jets, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys, and Raiders get viewers (no matter how bad they are), and the Bills simply do not. There just aren't enough of us. And I think that the NFL has shown its true intentions with this new revenue-sharing agreement. I hope that Golisano has a good anti-trust lawyer..... John D.

I think that it is also worth noting that as more and more revenue in the NFL is being shared that the NFL starts to develop a greater and greater interest in the Bills franchise being located in the market where it will make the most money. John D.

It would be nice, but somehow I don't see the Bills as ever having a season ticket waiting list that's a mile long like the Packers do. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened. Moreover, there is more separating the Bills from the Packers than just "institution status"..... Milwaukee Metro Area: 1.7 million people Buffalo Metro Area: 1.2 million people 1990-2000 Population Growth Rate Milwaukee: +5.1% Buffalo: -1.6% Fortune 500 Companies: Milwaukee Metro Area: 8 (+1 in Green Bay, +1 in Madison) Buffalo Metro Area: ZERO (+1 in Rochester) O.k., Milwaukee may be closer in size to Buffalo than to Los Angeles, but in terms of growth, and particularly in terms of money, Buffalo lags well behind even Milwaukee. JDG

Green Bay has the advantage of basically being able to tap into the Milwaukee metro area. Green Bay has become a Wisconsin institution, and Milwaukee is hugely Packers Country at this point. JDG

In fairness, Promo - most articles in the National Media about a possible relocation to LA list both New Orleans and San Diego, as well as occasionally Oakland, as being ahead of the Bills. JDG

Great minds think alike, Lori.... ;-)

Who's this 'we' Kemosabe?

Too bad we can't draft Charlie Weis....

Or else that Craig Nall starts showing it next year...... ;-) JDG

Don't you mean "rather than hiring Charlie Weis"? JDG

Dallas took Marcus Spears, DE, LSU with our pick, and he was a situational guy this year, although he played in every game. After that were two WR's, followed by Fabian Washington, a DB who played situationally for Oakland. The real intriguing part, is that there were also two QB's taken after that - Aaron Rodgers by Green Bay and Jason Campbell by Washington. Will Losman be any better than either of them? JDG

Who should be running the League, if not businessmen?

I was surprised too: #395 - WPS Resources. All told, Green Bay-Milwaukee-Madison has 10 Fortune 500 companies. Buffalo-Rochester-Niagara Falls-Syracuse-Bighamton-Jamestown: 1 Yuck. JDG