Did Russ Brandon admit that the Bills may move to Toronto?

[Arkady Renko]

Bills CEO Russ Brandon, who also was on the call, and Nicholson agreed that the Argos and Bills could co-exist side-by-side in the same marketplace. But it’s an issue both will worry about when and if it becomes reality.

 

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Tor...4/14927246.html

[Hossage]

It shows that he has given the issue plenty of thought. But that would only be due diligence.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

I don't see where there was any talk of a move. I think it's more about the current venture between the two cities.

[Arkady Renko]

I don't see where there was any talk of a move. I think it's more about the current venture between the two cities.

 

To me, it seems like Russ Brandon was agreeing that the Bills and the Argos could co-exist if they were both fully in Toronto.

[jj____]

can someone please just tell me if the bills are moving or not so i dont have to live my life in worry!?

[Assquatch]

To me, it seems like Russ Brandon was agreeing that the Bills and the Argos could co-exist if they were both fully in Toronto.

Agreed. Why else say "it’s an issue both will worry about when and if it becomes reality" if it's about the current arrangement?

[Hplarrm]

It shows that he has given the issue plenty of thought. But that would only be due diligence.

My sense would be economically about the extent to which the NFL as part of its strategy to reach more eyeballs by setting up franchises in foreign countries, does the NFL do this best by moving the Bills to Toronto, or instead my sense is try to create a Maple Leafs/Sabres dynamic with the Bills/whoever they are.

 

The Bills by pursuing their current strategy are doing a number of things:

 

1. Asserting their territorial rights so that if.when the NFL gets a Toronto franchise part of the buy-in price is a payment to the Bills (and Mr. Ralph is he is still with us) for encroaching on the Bills territory.

 

2. Supports the current Bills regional marketing strategy. In fact, even if there is a Toronto team, Buffalo will be closer and still market to get folks Hamilton and South to Ft. Erie.

 

3. Tests what the market will pay for football.

 

4. Builds relationships with Toronto based companies and gets them into the habit of buying football and using it for entertainment.

 

I think it works well together. Franchises co-exist in hockey. There are a lot of advantages to see if and how they can coexist in football.

[DanInUticaTampa]

It looks like Russ is hinting at that, and if he is, that is really just his speclation. He doesn't know if the bills will more to toronto or not. The team isn't going to move while ralph is alive, and whatever happens to the team (whether it stays with the family or is sold to the highest bidder like ralph says) then the new owner will decide what happens with the team. And Russ aint gonna be the new owner.

[jj____]

yeah well its not like ralph is in the greatest shape these days. i just hope that the team doesn't go to L.A.

[Arkady Renko]

yeah well its not like ralph is in the greatest shape these days. i just hope that the team doesn't go to L.A.

 

Move to Toronto, move to LA. Either way, they are dead to me at that point.

[Meathead]

cue the freak outs but i dont think its a question of being a possibility, it already is. whether it happens or not remains to be seen but it is certainly possible

 

personally i think its likely and all in all thats better than them leaving completely. theyd still be my team so in the either or world i take either

 

the official guaranteed-to-happen® mh likelihood of the bills eventually moving to canada: 71.6%

 

deal wied it

[ForbiddenDonut]

I saw no Brandon quote. They may be putting words in the marketing guru's mouth.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Tor...4/14927246.html

 

 

No he didnt.

The Bills and Rogers Communications Ltd. made headlines when they unveiled the Bills Toronto Series prior to the 2008 season. Many football pundits interpreted the announcement as the first sign that the NFL club was looking to relocate to southern Ontario.

 

But Bills chief operating officer Russ Brandon has always maintained the series — which consists of three exhibition games and five regular-season contests — was part of the NFL team's marketing initiatives to expand and strengthen its brand in the lucrative southern Ontario market. And Brandon said Wednesday that Buffalo's participation in Football Week in Toronto is another step in that direction.

 

"We're squarely focused on what we stated from Day 1 with our primary objective of this series and that's to expand our market reach into the Greater Toronto Area," Brandon said during a conference call. "We're very focused on regionalizing our brand and it's all part and parcel with what we're doing in Toronto.''

 

http://bills.football-news-update.com/argo...-football-week/

[Buffalo_Stampede]

More

 

“We want to expand our market reach into Toronto,” said Russ Brandon, chief executive officer of the Bills. But not just to push the U.S. product in Canada’s biggest market; the Bills want Torontonians to head south of the border for their NFL fix, too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/foot...article1662254/

[RayFinkle]

It has been said before, when Ralph dies so do the buffalo bills. Best bet for them to at least stay in the area is Toronto.

[MyHorseAteTheKid]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Tor...4/14927246.html

 

 

If and when this happens, It will break my heart...

[dwight in philly]

To me, it seems like Russ Brandon was agreeing that the Bills and the Argos could co-exist if they were both fully in Toronto.

that was my feeling. just gathered that brandon felt that the argos and bills could co-exist . the one game in toronto, the argos continuing on. i hate the one game concept, hope it ends, but that is all there was to that article.

[HurlyBurly51]

It shows that he has given the issue plenty of thought. But that would only be due diligence.

 

He's saying the CFL and NFL can both survive in the same marketplace, even if their games and seasons overlap. He's not talking about physically moving the team up there. Get a grip.

[PromoTheRobot]

I think you can count on the Bills winding up in Ontario, whether its downtown Toronto or at a new stadium elsewhere like Hamilton. I think this whole Toronto series is the prelude. For all we know the $78M was Rogers down payment to Ralph for th Bills.

 

That said, I also think the NFL will insist that some games are still played in Orchard Park. The league doesn't want another franchise move black eye so they will call it "regionalization." A new Canadian owner will assume the team after Ralph passes. They will split the schedule between the two stadiums, then play more in Toronto. At some point they will build a new stadium and claim RWS is obsolete. By then we'll see the Bills for one annual pre-season game.

 

Now Bills fans can pout about it or they can just accept that's how it's going to be. The team will only be 90 minutes away max. Anyone who still wants to buy (much more expensive) season tickets and get a passport or enhanced drivers license will still be able to watch the Bills live. For everyone else the games will still be on TV. IMO, after the initial shock, people will just accept it and still follow the Bills, especially if they get good again.

 

PTR

[Malazan]

He's saying the CFL and NFL can both survive in the same marketplace, even if their games and seasons overlap. He's not talking about physically moving the team up there. Get a grip.

 

NO! WE MUST PANIC! I HEARD THAT RUBEN BROWN LEAVING THE TEAM WAS ALL PART OF THIS CONSPIRACY! YOU DON'T FOOL US, RUSS! GET OFF THIS BOARD!

[kasper13]

Bills are never moving to Toronto. $750 million for the team. Billion dollars relocation fee. Billion dollars for a new stadium. Untold millions for the litany of lawsuits that would be filed. Toronto draws next to nothing for the Bills games. Most of the tickets have been given away to fill the Rogers Center. The ticket prices are too high for the one game already. They don't count Canadian TV ratings in the USA. That would hurt advertising. Toronto wouldn't support a full time NFL team. I could go on and on and on.

 

All that said, what I do so is the NFL going to an 18 game regular season and Toronto getting 2 regular season Bills games. That is the extent of it in my opinion.

[JohnC]

or is sold to the highest bidder like ralph says) then the new owner will decide what happens with the team.

 

It is as simple as that. Anxious fans are always trying to determine what is going to happen. Just accept what the owner says he is going to do. First and foremost Ralph is a businessman. To him, in life and death, everything is about the profit margin. Why is it so hard to figure out what he is going to do?

 

If the highest bidder is from the area and wants to keep it there it will stay there. If the highest bidder is from outside the area and wants to move the team it will be moved. Don't worry about what you can't control.

[Glory Bound]

can someone please just tell me if the bills are moving or not so i dont have to live my life in worry!?

Sometimes I think if the Bills moved to Toronto I would STOP worrying! Kinda like being married to an alcoholic.

[Hplarrm]

It is as simple as that. Anxious fans are always trying to determine what is going to happen. Just accept what the owner says he is going to do. First and foremost Ralph is a businessman. To him, in life and death, everything is about the profit margin. Why is it so hard to figure out what he is going to do?

 

If the highest bidder is from the area and wants to keep it there it will stay there. If the highest bidder is from outside the area and wants to move the team it will be moved. Don't worry about what you can't control.

Reality says it ain't that simple.

 

Lets say that the highest bidder is a group led by (or even has a prominent member) Rush Limbaugh.

 

Does the highest bidder automagically get the team?

 

Nope.

 

This already happened.

 

Let's say that the highest bidder is some Saudi rich guy with Toronto chops. Lets say he is Osana bin Laden's cousin has the name has not expressed a love for jihad but refuses to disavow and rag on his cuz is the high bidder.

 

Is the NFL forced to make this a part of the business promotion strategy?

 

I think not. Both logic and the contractual agreement between Ralph and the NFL mandates that 75% of the owners must agree to the new owner and they have in essence an absolute veto on who is their partner, so this must go to the highest bidder thing ain't always the case.

 

Its the golden rule in this league (he who had the gold rules) but just being the highest bidder is not the same as this purchase being good business.

[uncle flap]

Reality says it ain't that simple.

 

Lets say that the highest bidder is a group led by (or even has a prominent member) Rush Limbaugh.

 

Does the highest bidder automagically get the team?

 

Nope.

 

This already happened.

 

Let's say that the highest bidder is some Saudi rich guy with Toronto chops. Lets say he is Osana bin Laden's cousin has the name has not expressed a love for jihad but refuses to disavow and rag on his cuz is the high bidder.

 

Is the NFL forced to make this a part of the business promotion strategy?

 

I think not. Both logic and the contractual agreement between Ralph and the NFL mandates that 75% of the owners must agree to the new owner and they have in essence an absolute veto on who is their partner, so this must go to the highest bidder thing ain't always the case.

 

Its the golden rule in this league (he who had the gold rules) but just being the highest bidder is not the same as this purchase being good business.

 

that's my new favorite word

[Red]

This is quite a tough thing to predict.

 

I'm tired of all of the Bills-to-LA stuff, so please knock it off. It ain't gonna happen.

 

As far as Toronto is concerned, it is close enough that the Bills don't have to move. But, in that situation only so many residents of Toronto will make that voyage every weekend. The NFL is trying to go global with its product (games in Japan, England, Mexico, Canada), but I don't think it is ready for that yet. The thing about Toronto, though, is that it is something like the 5th largest city in North America, and it is only some 1.5 hours from NY. It is not a 3rd world country like Mexico, English is spoken (albeit- they sure do say 'boat' funny). That is alot of $$$$ up north, and Russ may be playing the part of marketing stooge just to sweet talk the Canadiens into believing he's moving soon. Ever think of that? He's keeping options open while hoping to entice more money to flow into the Bills coffers?

 

Anyways, if the Bills were to ever move anywhere, they would no longer be my team and I would probably stop paying much attention to the NFL. Atleast not enough to pay hundreds of dollars per year on merchandise and Sunday Ticket.

[JohnC]

Reality says it ain't that simple.

 

Lets say that the highest bidder is a group led by (or even has a prominent member) Rush Limbaugh.

 

Does the highest bidder automagically get the team?

 

Nope.

 

This already happened.

 

Let's say that the highest bidder is some Saudi rich guy with Toronto chops. Lets say he is Osana bin Laden's cousin has the name has not expressed a love for jihad but refuses to disavow and rag on his cuz is the high bidder.

 

Is the NFL forced to make this a part of the business promotion strategy?

 

I think not. Both logic and the contractual agreement between Ralph and the NFL mandates that 75% of the owners must agree to the new owner and they have in essence an absolute veto on who is their partner, so this must go to the highest bidder thing ain't always the case.

 

Its the golden rule in this league (he who had the gold rules) but just being the highest bidder is not the same as this purchase being good business.

 

Are you aware that a Russian just bought a NBA franchise, the New Jersey Nets. If the Rogers group buys the team and wants to move it to Toronto it will be moved. In addition, since the Bills have played games in Toronto there is a good posibility that there won't be a relocation fee because a very good argument can be made that they are already part of the Bills' market.

 

Do you think that Jerry Jones or Snyder would vote against the Bills moving to LA if a west coast group won the bid? Don't you think they are fed up with Ralph taking their big market revenue sharing money and pocketing it?

 

You are correct that there are bidders who wouldn't be acceptable to the league. But certainly that doesn't mean there would not be quality outside bidders who would be acceptable to the league.

 

The owner has established that the team is going to be sold to the highest bidder. That is what is going to happen. If the winning bidder wants to keep it local it will stay local. If the winning bidder wants to move the franchise it will be moved.

[Chandler#81]

I think you can count on the Bills winding up in Ontario, whether its downtown Toronto or at a new stadium elsewhere like Hamilton. I think this whole Toronto series is the prelude. For all we know the $78M was Rogers down payment to Ralph for th Bills.

 

That said, I also think the NFL will insist that some games are still played in Orchard Park. The league doesn't want another franchise move black eye so they will call it "regionalization." A new Canadian owner will assume the team after Ralph passes. They will split the schedule between the two stadiums, then play more in Toronto. At some point they will build a new stadium and claim RWS is obsolete. By then we'll see the Bills for one annual pre-season game.

 

Now Bills fans can pout about it or they can just accept that's how it's going to be. The team will only be 90 minutes away max. Anyone who still wants to buy (much more expensive) season tickets and get a passport or enhanced drivers license will still be able to watch the Bills live. For everyone else the games will still be on TV. IMO, after the initial shock, people will just accept it and still follow the Bills, especially if they get good again.

 

PTR

 

 

Dammit, PTR! Those are my heartstrings you're callously ripping from me in a cold, calculating, seemingly irrefutable manner.

 

At least swear, please!

[Typical TBD Guy]

I think you can count on the Bills winding up in Ontario, whether its downtown Toronto or at a new stadium elsewhere like Hamilton. I think this whole Toronto series is the prelude. For all we know the $78M was Rogers down payment to Ralph for th Bills.

 

That said, I also think the NFL will insist that some games are still played in Orchard Park. The league doesn't want another franchise move black eye so they will call it "regionalization." A new Canadian owner will assume the team after Ralph passes. They will split the schedule between the two stadiums, then play more in Toronto. At some point they will build a new stadium and claim RWS is obsolete. By then we'll see the Bills for one annual pre-season game.

 

Now Bills fans can pout about it or they can just accept that's how it's going to be. The team will only be 90 minutes away max. Anyone who still wants to buy (much more expensive) season tickets and get a passport or enhanced drivers license will still be able to watch the Bills live. For everyone else the games will still be on TV. IMO, after the initial shock, people will just accept it and still follow the Bills, especially if they get good again.

 

PTR

 

Doubtful.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Bills are never moving to Toronto. $750 million for the team. Billion dollars relocation fee. Billion dollars for a new stadium. Untold millions for the litany of lawsuits that would be filed. Toronto draws next to nothing for the Bills games. Most of the tickets have been given away to fill the Rogers Center. The ticket prices are too high for the one game already. They don't count Canadian TV ratings in the USA. That would hurt advertising. Toronto wouldn't support a full time NFL team. I could go on and on and on.

 

All that said, what I do so is the NFL going to an 18 game regular season and Toronto getting 2 regular season Bills games. That is the extent of it in my opinion.

 

Agreed.

[BB2004]

can someone please just tell me if the bills are moving or not so i dont have to live my life in worry!?

 

Absolutely agree jj. How about never moving from Buffalo sounds a lot better.

[billsfan89]

The Bills are always on the move. Either way just enjoy them in Buffalo and worry about the possibilities later.

[coldstorage5]

NY state will never let the Bills Leave. Its our only FB team.

This is a fact,... Not to LA, or Toronto.

Western NY and Ontario have and always will support an NFL Team

[coldstorage5]

Doubtful.

I wouldnt mind if2 out of 9 games were in Toronto. Maybe im Crazy, but I kinda like the idea,.... I wonder how the players and coaches feel....If they think it is a hassle, then I would change my mind.

[trolls_r_us]

this is a good lesson for life....

 

None of us will be here forever, and neither will the Bills.

 

You can either worry about it all the time, or just enjoy it while you've got it.

 

I'll take the latter

[Hplarrm]

Are you aware that a Russian just bought a NBA franchise, the New Jersey Nets. If the Rogers group buys the team and wants to move it to Toronto it will be moved. In addition, since the Bills have played games in Toronto there is a good posibility that there won't be a relocation fee because a very good argument can be made that they are already part of the Bills' market.

 

Do you think that Jerry Jones or Snyder would vote against the Bills moving to LA if a west coast group won the bid? Don't you think they are fed up with Ralph taking their big market revenue sharing money and pocketing it?

 

You are correct that there are bidders who wouldn't be acceptable to the league. But certainly that doesn't mean there would not be quality outside bidders who would be acceptable to the league.

 

The owner has established that the team is going to be sold to the highest bidder. That is what is going to happen. If the winning bidder wants to keep it local it will stay local. If the winning bidder wants to move the franchise it will be moved.

I really liked you using the word IF in your litany of possibilities as it actually presents a very different level of uncertainty and wide ranging possibilities to this situation than I took from previous messaging by you that seemed to present much more certainty about an issue you described as that simple.

 

It clearly ain't simple at all and I think this post provides a nice contrast to the impression I gathered from the declaration of simplicity.

 

I also was quite pleased to see you agree with there are outside bidders who even if they were the highest bidder would not be acceptable to the league. I also believe there are outside bidders who MAY be acceptable to the league. I have no problem with these two maybes being true as really these two truths are what demonstrates it ain't really that simple.

 

I am a little confused though about how it can both be true with your first statement we agreed about that there MAY be high bidders out there which are unacceptable to the league but then you say that the owner has established that the team would be sold to the high bidder.

 

Unless you feel that it does not matter what the league thinks (if you and I are right that there are potential bidders out there who MAY not be acceptable to the NFL and what Ralph has established of selling to the highest bidder without regard to what the other owners think then you are right the team might simply go to the highest bidder.

 

However, this makes no sense in terms of business practice and the little I know of the law:

 

1. It appears to me that Ralph has contractually agreed either when he bought the franchise or participated in ongoing processes like the merger, the first CBA, and clearly in the last CBA where he voted one way with GB and everyone else voted the other way and Ralph has lived by the majority vote. I see lots of signs that Ralph and the Bills will live by NFL rules and no evidence that they would not and the rule is not that Ralph can simply force the NFL to do business with the highest bidder but only with the highest qualified bidder. That bidder would need to attract 75% support of the other team owners.

 

Does this mean the Bills won't move? No not at all.

 

However, what does this mean about the declaration of certainty that the Bills will definitely move?

 

It actually adds a wrinkle to this that it just ain't simple. Unless you have some factual information or merely even want to engage in fact-free arguing that a dead Ralph can do whatever he wants without regard to what the NFL wants then feel free.

 

However, back here in the real world, we realize that if the agreement of 75% of the owners is essential to any move and Chuck Shumer or Gillenbrand and their desire to curry favor with their WNY voters announce that if the Bills are gonna be the only team which plays in NYS and may leave if sold to someone who wants to move them, they are gonna initiate hearings into jettisoning the NFLs limited antitrust exemption, Shumer needs to only find 8 wimps among the owners he can roll into opposing potential owners who may move the team. Will it happen, I do not know. But the key is that you do not know either and it ain't that simple.

 

2. Does Ralph's will actually state it will be sold to the highest bidder (though in real life it actually must be to the highest qualified bidder but we can ignore that for the moment)?

 

I have not seen Ralph's will. Have you?

 

Ralph made some statement it appears that the team will be sold to the highest bidder (I have not seen the actual quote though I have heard it referenced but do you have a link?

 

Has he changed his mind since his daughter died?

 

Might he change his mind and thus his will in the future due to a change of heart or senility?

 

The bottomline is I think that really none of us really knows what Ralph is gonna say in his will and anyway though what he says will certainly matter he will be dead. Any disputes simply go to the courts and actually given the speed of the probate courts if there is any dispute the Bills will remain in Buffalo for years while the case wends its way through the system.

 

It ain't that simple.

 

3. At any rate I think there is a thing most of us agree is the truth that drives this thing. Namely, that the owner being a person will likely go for the thing which gets him the most cash.

 

I know I think that.

 

However, I think the fallacy in most folks thinking is that they are assuming that the question is whether an owner in the position of Ralph or the NFL owner of your grandma's era makes more money with the franchise in Buffalo, LA, or some other dot.com city.

 

Actually, as best as I could tell Ralph lost the last vote on the CBA badly because he is among the last to accept that it ain't like the old days where owners like George Halas did whatever they wanted.

 

Its now a corporate world and actually with the late 80s CBA the NFL rejected the free market model (individual owners without the collaboration of the NFLPA had dissolved itself would actually have had to negotiate personal services contracts with each player in a true free market.

 

Instead the team owners gave the NFLPA what it wanted which was to become a partner rather than simply employees and actually get as much as 70% of what was called the designated gross.

 

This started formally the end of the illusion of a free market (the owners were individual gunslingers but did not really participate in a free market which paid market rates for players skills. Instead with that CBA the NFL owners and the NFL players went down the road together to a much more socialized brand of capitalism. Everybody made more money than than was remotely possible under the old psuedo free market,

 

The decision-makers now is not the individual team owner for the entire league,

 

The last CBA which awarded the players 60.5% of the total gross receipts was accepted by the Jerry Jones and the Snyders of the world because they realized that they actually made more money with 39.5% of the NFL total receipts (with its lead source being the TV nets) than they would with a disputed contract and labor war.

 

It did not matter in terms of maximizing profit that he owners could kick the tar out of the players as happened in the 80s lockouts. As long as the provision of a product was dicey the TV nets would not invest heavily.

 

With the CBA and the collusion of the NFL and NFLPA in place the TV gave the NFL billions.

 

This cash cow is once again at risk with the reopening of the CBA and the haggling will go on until the last minute as millionaires fight with billionaires. However, the fact remains there is no money unless they play so play they will.

 

As far as playing Buffalo or elswhere. I think the NFL owners and the TV nets that really pay for it maximizes its profits not by collecting the chumpchange of a licensing fee for the new owner split 31 ways. but by pursuing what appears a strategy of getting additional eyeballs in markets like Mexico City, Toronto, Europe, Tokyo and even Johannesburg to turn on to the American version of football.

 

If this is the central strategy, the game here is not for individual owners to maximize their personal profits by extorting money from citys, but instead to realize the real cash market is eyeballs around the world.

 

In this configuration the Bills value actually comes from the tradition it brings as an original AFL town. The positive it brings to the NFL is that its history with the greatest game ever played and a lot of HOF players is that as other cities join in they become part of the rich tradition.

 

If it leaves the negative is that as each town around the world considers whether to join, the sad pictures of abandoned Buffalo fans is not a good backdrop for selling the NFL experience to a potential new city.

 

The league will follow the money and given the choice between a Buffalo or Toronto franchise the great answer for the NFL if it can pull it off would be to have both cities.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I really liked you using the word IF in your litany of possibilities as it actually presents a very different level of uncertainty and wide ranging possibilities to this situation than I took from previous messaging by you that seemed to present much more certainty about an issue you described as that simple.

 

It clearly ain't simple at all and I think this post provides a nice contrast to the impression I gathered from the declaration of simplicity.

 

I also was quite pleased to see you agree with there are outside bidders who even if they were the highest bidder would not be acceptable to the league. I also believe there are outside bidders who MAY be acceptable to the league. I have no problem with these two maybes being true as really these two truths are what demonstrates it ain't really that simple.

 

I am a little confused though about how it can both be true with your first statement we agreed about that there MAY be high bidders out there which are unacceptable to the league but then you say that the owner has established that the team would be sold to the high bidder.

 

Unless you feel that it does not matter what the league thinks (if you and I are right that there are potential bidders out there who MAY not be acceptable to the NFL and what Ralph has established of selling to the highest bidder without regard to what the other owners think then you are right the team might simply go to the highest bidder.

 

However, this makes no sense in terms of business practice and the little I know of the law:

 

1. It appears to me that Ralph has contractually agreed either when he bought the franchise or participated in ongoing processes like the merger, the first CBA, and clearly in the last CBA where he voted one way with GB and everyone else voted the other way and Ralph has lived by the majority vote. I see lots of signs that Ralph and the Bills will live by NFL rules and no evidence that they would not and the rule is not that Ralph can simply force the NFL to do business with the highest bidder but only with the highest qualified bidder. That bidder would need to attract 75% support of the other team owners.

 

Does this mean the Bills won't move? No not at all.

 

However, what does this mean about the declaration of certainty that the Bills will definitely move?

 

It actually adds a wrinkle to this that it just ain't simple. Unless you have some factual information or merely even want to engage in fact-free arguing that a dead Ralph can do whatever he wants without regard to what the NFL wants then feel free.

 

However, back here in the real world, we realize that if the agreement of 75% of the owners is essential to any move and Chuck Shumer or Gillenbrand and their desire to curry favor with their WNY voters announce that if the Bills are gonna be the only team which plays in NYS and may leave if sold to someone who wants to move them, they are gonna initiate hearings into jettisoning the NFLs limited antitrust exemption, Shumer needs to only find 8 wimps among the owners he can roll into opposing potential owners who may move the team. Will it happen, I do not know. But the key is that you do not know either and it ain't that simple.

 

2. Does Ralph's will actually state it will be sold to the highest bidder (though in real life it actually must be to the highest qualified bidder but we can ignore that for the moment)?

 

I have not seen Ralph's will. Have you?

 

Ralph made some statement it appears that the team will be sold to the highest bidder (I have not seen the actual quote though I have heard it referenced but do you have a link?

 

Has he changed his mind since his daughter died?

 

Might he change his mind and thus his will in the future due to a change of heart or senility?

 

The bottomline is I think that really none of us really knows what Ralph is gonna say in his will and anyway though what he says will certainly matter he will be dead. Any disputes simply go to the courts and actually given the speed of the probate courts if there is any dispute the Bills will remain in Buffalo for years while the case wends its way through the system.

 

It ain't that simple.

 

3. At any rate I think there is a thing most of us agree is the truth that drives this thing. Namely, that the owner being a person will likely go for the thing which gets him the most cash.

 

I know I think that.

 

However, I think the fallacy in most folks thinking is that they are assuming that the question is whether an owner in the position of Ralph or the NFL owner of your grandma's era makes more money with the franchise in Buffalo, LA, or some other dot.com city.

 

Actually, as best as I could tell Ralph lost the last vote on the CBA badly because he is among the last to accept that it ain't like the old days where owners like George Halas did whatever they wanted.

 

Its now a corporate world and actually with the late 80s CBA the NFL rejected the free market model (individual owners without the collaboration of the NFLPA had dissolved itself would actually have had to negotiate personal services contracts with each player in a true free market.

 

Instead the team owners gave the NFLPA what it wanted which was to become a partner rather than simply employees and actually get as much as 70% of what was called the designated gross.

 

This started formally the end of the illusion of a free market (the owners were individual gunslingers but did not really participate in a free market which paid market rates for players skills. Instead with that CBA the NFL owners and the NFL players went down the road together to a much more socialized brand of capitalism. Everybody made more money than than was remotely possible under the old psuedo free market,

 

The decision-makers now is not the individual team owner for the entire league,

 

The last CBA which awarded the players 60.5% of the total gross receipts was accepted by the Jerry Jones and the Snyders of the world because they realized that they actually made more money with 39.5% of the NFL total receipts (with its lead source being the TV nets) than they would with a disputed contract and labor war.

 

It did not matter in terms of maximizing profit that he owners could kick the tar out of the players as happened in the 80s lockouts. As long as the provision of a product was dicey the TV nets would not invest heavily.

 

With the CBA and the collusion of the NFL and NFLPA in place the TV gave the NFL billions.

 

This cash cow is once again at risk with the reopening of the CBA and the haggling will go on until the last minute as millionaires fight with billionaires. However, the fact remains there is no money unless they play so play they will.

 

As far as playing Buffalo or elswhere. I think the NFL owners and the TV nets that really pay for it maximizes its profits not by collecting the chumpchange of a licensing fee for the new owner split 31 ways. but by pursuing what appears a strategy of getting additional eyeballs in markets like Mexico City, Toronto, Europe, Tokyo and even Johannesburg to turn on to the American version of football.

 

If this is the central strategy, the game here is not for individual owners to maximize their personal profits by extorting money from citys, but instead to realize the real cash market is eyeballs around the world.

 

In this configuration the Bills value actually comes from the tradition it brings as an original AFL town. The positive it brings to the NFL is that its history with the greatest game ever played and a lot of HOF players is that as other cities join in they become part of the rich tradition.

 

If it leaves the negative is that as each town around the world considers whether to join, the sad pictures of abandoned Buffalo fans is not a good backdrop for selling the NFL experience to a potential new city.

 

The league will follow the money and given the choice between a Buffalo or Toronto franchise the great answer for the NFL if it can pull it off would be to have both cities.

 

This post looks very interesting.

 

Is there an abridged version?

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

This post looks very interesting.

 

Is there an abridged version?

No kidding... my first thought was "Barry Brady is that you?"

[JohnC]

2. Does Ralph's will actually state it will be sold to the highest bidder (though in real life it actually must be to the highest qualified bidder but we can ignore that for the moment)?

 

You asked a qustion and then answered it. Re-read your point about "though in real life it actually must be sold to the highest qualified bidder----"

 

 

. At any rate I think there is a thing most of us agree is the truth that drives this thing. Namely, that the owner being a person will likely go for the thing which gets him the most cash.

 

I know I think that.

 

Again, you posed a question and smartly answered it.

 

Of course Ralph is going to pursue a strategy which is going to get him the most cash in both life and death. Why is that so difficult to understand? He has been running the franchise for half a century in a particular way. Do you think he is going to change his character when he draws up his will?

 

When Modell sold the Ravens he had in place a minority owner who had an option to buy. When he sold the team it was a seamless transaction. When Huizenga sold the Dolphins he had in place a minority owner who had an option to buy. When the team was sold it was a seamless transaction.

 

Ralph Wilson is not making similar arrangements because that is not what he wants to do. He is the owner; it is his prerogative. Ralph Wilson will not publicy discuss his estate plans. Do you think that an owner who is in his 90s and not willing to discuss the future of the organization is a good sign?

 

Ralph Wilson has stated that the team will not be turned over to his wife. His children have no desire to take over the franchise when he passes or even before he passes. He has said that the franchise will be auctioned off when he dies. Why is that so so difficult to grasp?

 

(I apologize for not responding to all of your points. It would take too much time and tune out most people.)

[Lurker]

Agreed. Why else say "it’s an issue both will worry about when and if it becomes reality" if it's about the current arrangement?

We'll also worry about the giant astroid hitting earth, the Mayan caledar going past 2012 and any other hypothetical futures when they become reality...