No to Toronto!

[BuffaloBill]

Nothing against PTR, but the statement "The NFL wants out of Buffalo" is absurd. The NFL thrives in Western New York and I wish numbers could be put on how many NFL ticket sales are due to Buffalo Bills fans. The only thing and I mean only thing Buffalo is missing is a new stadium, and I think this happens as soon as new ownership arrives. But that has nothing to do with the NFL, it would only help the new owner make money.

 

Why would the NFL hate a fan base that fills their stadium, spends money on NFL apparel like mad, has out of town fans litered throughout the country, huge ratings came out of western new york for the draft and those same fans probably support the NFL networks ratings in big numbers, and is one of the founding teams of the league? Doesn't add up.

 

 

You miss the fact there os limited corporate money in WNY and if you exclude Toronto / Southern Ontario ... a small TV viewing audience. Don't kid yourself, from the NFL's perspective this is about TV money not about loyal fans.

[White Linen]

You miss the fact there os limited corporate money in WNY and if you exclude Toronto / Southern Ontario ... a small TV viewing audience. Don't kid yourself, from the NFL's perspective this is about TV money not about loyal fans.

 

Corporate money doesn't help the NFL, it helps the owner make more money. The NFL doesn't get a cut of corporate money the team brings in. You're kidding yourself if you don't think fan loyalty plays a huge part. But we will soon find out. When Mr. Wilson passes and the team moves regardless of a buyer wanting to keep the team in Buffalo, you will be right. If they stay I will be.

 

And if you think there's limited corporate money in Buffalo you've failed to look at several other cities that have NFL teams. But maybe you think the NFL wants them out too.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Triple Threat

[C.Biscuit97]

No offense taken. Just repeating 2nd hand stuff that could be total BS. Like I said, my friend, who is not a rumor monger, said this guy had some credentials. He wasn't some bum in a subway or drunk in a bar. Still that doesn't make him credible or plugged into the NFL just because he says so.

 

As for why the NFL "hates" us, we're a shrinking area with a bad economy and no mega-corporations to piss money away on luxury suites. It has nothing to do with (chuckle) fans.

 

PTR

 

I normally avoid these threads because I don't see the point but there are a couple of things I disagree with.

 

1) the shrinking is a bit misguided. WNY still has about a million. The Bills also draw a ton of people from Rochester & Southern Ontario. That's roughly around 5 million or so. That's not too shabby.

 

2) the commish is from Jamestown. I highly doubt he wants his legacy to be that he moved the Bills.

 

3) the NFL got killed for moving the Browns.

 

IMO, the Bills aren't going anywhere.

[BuffaloBill]

Corporate money doesn't help the NFL, it helps the owner make more money. The NFL doesn't get a cut of corporate money the team brings in. You're kidding yourself if you don't think fan loyalty plays a huge part. But we will soon find out. When Mr. Wilson passes and the team moves regardless of a buyer wanting to keep the team in Buffalo, you will be right. If they stay I will be.

 

And if you think there's limited corporate money in Buffalo you've failed to look at several other cities that have NFL teams. But maybe you think the NFL wants them out too.

 

 

Who controls the NFL? - The Owners

What do the owners want from the NFL? to subsidize small market teams Money

How do NFL owners make money? TV, Corporate Money (box sales), PSL's, ticket sales, merchandise licensing, other stadium revenue (depending on the setup of the stadium)

 

Do you really think that owners like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder give a flip about the average Joe fan? The do only insofar as Joe watches the team on TV and maybe buys a jersey or two. What do they really care about? TV money, box money, psl money and other stadium revenue.

 

I love the passion of Bills fans - I am one but you kid yourself if you think WNY can make the new NFL financial model work without Toronto. You also delude yourself if you think the owners are not drooling to get a team(s) into the #2 TV market in the country along with the corporate money that sits in the market.

 

I am not saying that the Bills can't make it work - I hope they do - seriously - but at the end of the day "fan loyalty" will not get it done on its own.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

LONDON ENGLAND ?? COME ON MAN !!! THERE WERE NEVER ANY BUFFALO'S IN ENGLAND . INCLUDING THESE ONES !!

 

MUST TRULY BE SECOND HAND , SOUNDS LIKE THAT INFO CAME FROM A BILLS HATER !! FROM ANYTHING GOODELL HAS SAID HE WANTS TO KEEP THE BILLS IN BUFFALO & SEEING AS HE'S A JAMESTOWN NATIVE I THINK HE MAY BE THE BILLS BIGGEST ALLIE !!

Not saying it impacts the Bills at all, but you might want to read this:

 

http://nfllabor.com/2010/10/29/commissioner-goodell-%E2%80%9Crestructured-season-would-allow-for-more-international-games%E2%80%9D/

[White Linen]

Who controls the NFL? - The Owners

What do the owners want from the NFL? to subsidize small market teams Money

How do NFL owners make money? TV, Corporate Money (box sales), PSL's, ticket sales, merchandise licensing, other stadium revenue (depending on the setup of the stadium)

 

Do you really think that owners like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder give a flip about the average Joe fan? The do only insofar as Joe watches the team on TV and maybe buys a jersey or two. What do they really care about? TV money, box money, psl money and other stadium revenue.

 

I love the passion of Bills fans - I am one but you kid yourself if you think WNY can make the new NFL financial model work without Toronto. You also delude yourself if you think the owners are not drooling to get a team(s) into the #2 TV market in the country along with the corporate money that sits in the market.

 

I am not saying that the Bills can't make it work - I hope they do - seriously - but at the end of the day "fan loyalty" will not get it done on its own.

 

Now you completely changed the argument. My argument was that if someone wanted to buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo, the NFL would not stop that. And they wouldn't. Why because the Buffalo Bills are a viable franchise, partly and importantly because of their fan base. Not all NFL owners think they're subsidizing small market teams, only the big market teams do, hence there was revenue sharing voted by NFL owners, so you're wrong there. So the only one drooling to get a team in the #2 market is an owner that wants to purchase a team, but the owner that wants to buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo will and the NFL won't stop it.

[K-9]

... You also delude yourself if you think the owners are not drooling to get a team(s) into the #2 TV market in the country along with the corporate money that sits in the market. ...

 

Why weren't the owners drooling to put a team in LA when they decided to add teams in Jax, Carolina, and Houston instead? Why did the Rams and Raiders leave that wonderful market? Was it just a stadium issue?

 

That big SoCal TV market is a double-edged sword to the networks. Perhaps it's changed but the Rams and Raiders routinely placed lower in the Sunday ratings than re-runs of Gilligan's Island. That's anathema to the networks and advertisers. I'm sure LA has a die-hard core of fans that would route for the home team. But I don't think it's a big enough core. The Chargers, Rams, and Raiders were never the Lakers or Dodgers.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Why weren't the owners drooling to put a team in LA when they decided to add teams in Jax, Carolina, and Houston instead? Why did the Rams and Raiders leave that wonderful market? Was it just a stadium issue?

 

That big SoCal TV market is a double-edged sword to the networks. Perhaps it's changed but the Rams and Raiders routinely placed lower in the Sunday ratings than re-runs of Gilligan's Island. That's anathema to the networks and advertisers. I'm sure LA has a die-hard core of fans that would route for the home team. But I don't think it's a big enough core. The Chargers, Rams, and Raiders were never the Lakers or Dodgers.

 

GO BILLS!!!

This only answers your first question, but one thing I rarely see mentioned on this issue is the impact that a large, open market like LA has on NFL owners who have no intention of moving, but want to threaten to move so they can squeeze as many dollars as possible from the cities they already are in. Put yourself in the shoes of Ralph Wilson or any other NFL owner. When it comes time to negotiate a new lease, a new stadium or anything else, it sure helps to be able to threaten to move to a big open market with no current team (as opposed to a smaller one).

 

When Ralph and the County are negotiating the renewal of the Bills stadium lease deal, Ralph can squeeze more concessions out of the County if he can make a credible argument that economics will force him to move the team to a more profitable market. He can squeeze a lot harder and more credibly if the available open market is LA as opposed to East Bumf***, or whatever the 33rd biggest market is these days.

 

Hypothetically, if JAX moves to LA, Ralph may get 1/32 of certain revenue increases because LA is more profitable than JAX. But that's only like 3% of the DELTA.

 

Conversely, if the LA market stays open, Ralph can make a much more credible threat to move, and he keeps 100% of the cost savings the County will provide to keep him here.

[K-9]

This only answers your first question, but one thing I rarely see mentioned on this issue is the impact that a large, open market like LA has on NFL owners who have no intention of moving, but want to threaten to move so they can squeeze as many dollars as possible from the cities they already are in. Put yourself in the shoes of Ralph Wilson or any other NFL owner. When it comes time to negotiate a new lease, a new stadium or anything else, it sure helps to be able to threaten to move to a big open market with no current team (as opposed to a smaller one).

 

When Ralph and the County are negotiating the renewal of the Bills stadium lease deal, Ralph can squeeze more concessions out of the County if he can make a credible argument that economics will force him to move the team to a more profitable market. He can squeeze a lot harder and more credibly if the available open market is LA as opposed to East Bumf***, or whatever the 33rd biggest market is these days.

 

Hypothetically, if JAX moves to LA, Ralph may get 1/32 of certain revenue increases because LA is more profitable than JAX. But that's only like 3% of the DELTA.

 

Conversely, if the LA market stays open, Ralph can make a much more credible threat to move, and he keeps 100% of the cost savings the County will provide to keep him here.

 

I don't doubt that some owners, looking for better deals in their current locations, would use the LA threat as leverage. I think you make a good point there.

 

It obviously makes sense for the league to go back to LA. But I don't think it's as easy as we think. They've had some heavy hitters mentioned in the past as being the guys to bring it back but it's not a slam dunk business model. I remember an article from a few years ago when Tagliabue was heading the committee on the feasibility of expanding to the LA market and one of the points the article mentioned was that businesses didn't think NFL football was that popular there. That, coupled with the public's reluctance to finance stadiums was a show stopper to these guys (the author of the article even mentioned how it's not a coincidence that the three NFL teams in CA play in the three worst stadiums).

 

I don't really know what to make of Roski and his group. Until I see something more substantial, he's just another wannabe blowing smoke.

 

I'll see if I can find that article.

 

BTW, what happened to your colloquialisms? That was pretty fun yesterday. And it WAS all in good fun.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

P.S. Here's the article. Gotta love Google.

 

http://sportsbiznews.blogspot.com/2008/04/dreaming-big-los-angeles-nfl-dream.html

Edited May 13, 2011 by K-9

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I don't doubt that some owners, looking for better deals in their current locations, would use the LA threat as leverage. I think you make a good point there.

 

It obviously makes sense for the league to go back to LA. But I don't think it's as easy as we think. They've had some heavy hitters mentioned in the past as being the guys to bring it back but it's not a slam dunk business model. I remember an article from a few years ago when Tagliabue was heading the committee on the feasibility of expanding to the LA market and one of the points the article mentioned was that businesses didn't think NFL football was that popular there. That, coupled with the public's reluctance to finance stadiums was a show stopper to these guys (the author of the article even mentioned how it's not a coincidence that the three NFL teams in CA play in the three worst stadiums).

 

I don't really know what to make of Roski and his group. Until I see something more substantial, he's just another wannabe blowing smoke.

 

I'll see if I can find that article.

 

BTW, what happened to your colloquialisms? That was pretty fun yesterday. And it WAS all in good fun.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

P.S. Here's the article. Gotta love Google.

 

http://sportsbiznews.blogspot.com/2008/04/dreaming-big-los-angeles-nfl-dream.html

1. The following paragraph is a direct quote from that 2008 article:

 

"I've never been involved in a deal like this," said Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of the state assembly from Los Angeles who used to represent Parks's district and is a longtime advocate of bringing football back to the coliseum. "Periodically they create competition -- Carson one day and Pasadena the next. They tell us Carson is the first choice and then it's Pasadena, they're constantly moving the ball on us. They're always trying to leverage one venue against the next. There's something about Los Angeles that makes them drive up the price and that impedes the deal."

 

It's been 3 more years, and still no team in LA. Not even close. Ask yourself why. If you're a little cynical, it goes like this. The NFL is constantly talking about putting a team in LA, the NFL is making sure that there is media attention and frequent news reports about its supposed desire to put a team in LA, the NFL gets lots of fatcat potential owners interested enough in getting an LA franchise so that they start partnering up and getting tentative financing arrangements made. Now they've even gotten one fatcat group to sell naming rights to a stadium that hasn't even been approved by the City of LA yet, much less built. With all that media attention and activity, why is LA still so far from having an NFL team? Why does the NFL "keep moving the ball on us" according to Mark Ridley-Thomas?

 

Maybe it's because the NFL wants to put its existing owners in the continual position of being able to extract maximum economic concessions from the communities where they're already located. Each individual owner votes his pocketbook. The "league" decisions are just the sum of 32 individualized decisions evaluating the same trade-off - - 3% of the post-move revenue DELTA vs. 100% of the no-move cost savings.

 

Here's a more recent article about the possibility of a future NFL team in LA:

 

http://www.ourweekly.com/los-angeles/public-hearing-nfl-stadium-set-wednesday

 

2. If you're interested in an overview of recent stadium building activity, check out the recent comments by NFL officals here [RG = Roger Goodell]:

 

http://www.milehighreport.com/2011/3/18/2059463/a-few-good-minutes-with-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell

 

"On stadium issues facing both Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers:

 

RG: It's fairly recognized that both of those franchise as well as the San Diego Chargers, all three of our teams in California, are faced with stadium challenges that need to be addressed. We obviously recognize that there are challenges in each of those markets from a pure economy standpoint. But it also goes back to the collective bargaining agreement. It's not a surprise that there has not been a new stadium built since that agreement was structured in 2006. The stadiums that were completed was started prior to this deal being completed - Dallas, New York and Kansas City and maybe Indianapolis. There have been no projects that have been drawn up, approved and financed under this agreement. Part of what we need to do in getting this agreement done, is to get an agreement in place that allows us to finance these projects which are more and more challenging in today's environment. Certainly having two teams in one stadium does help address the economics as proven here in NY with the Jets and the Giants, but it is still filled with many challenges. I think the teams are willing to look at joint solutions, work towards joint solutions, but we have a long ways to go before we are going to settle on any of those."

 

I'm not positive, but I think the NFL wants the players to let the owners take money dedicated to stadium building off the top of future league revenues, and then share the rest with the players in some percentage to be agreed upon in bargaining. The owners want to do that because the economic health of US cities isn't what it used to be, and they haven't had as much success as they are accustomed to in getting cities to pony up $ to keep them.

 

3. Buddy Nix may be the King of Colloquialisms, but even he doesn't use them all the time. If I had to guess, I reckon at some point they'll be back.

Edited May 13, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Guest three3]

If anyone on here that reads this that is apart of Facebook join this group "NO to Toronto! Bills are staying in Buffalo!"

 

that would be as effective as opening your window and screaming the same

[Typical TBD Guy]

Someone I know spoke with a guy who worked for Jack Kent Cooke. Take it for what it's worth (second hand info) but this guy says the NFL wants out of Buffalo, period. And the only reason they are still here is because of Ralph. Once he passes the NFL will not even listen to any bidder who will keep the Bills in WNY...or TORONTO! Apparently this guy says the NFL sees the Bills-Toronto series as a flop and doesn't even want to see the team wind up there. So where are the Bills heading? L.A. probably but apparently London, England is a possibility as well.

 

This is second-hand info. I have no idea who this "guy" is but my buddy is not a rumor monger. I'm just repeating what he was told. I hope it's BS.

 

PTR

 

Jack Kent Cooke died in 1997. How strong is your guy's inside information if he's presumably been out of NFL-related work for well over a decade? The Bills-Toronto series only started in 2008, yet he's already hearing NFL guys calling it a bust? Or is that just your guy's own opinion?

 

I simply can't believe that the NFL would be so eager to abandon this entire region (Buffalo, Toronto, Hamilton, and Rochester). That's 9+ million people right there, 53+ years of tradition, and fairly consistent sellouts in spite of 11+ years of terrible football.

 

I realize that LA is a veritable goldmine for the NFL, and I do happen to be one of those people who believes that LA can eventually support 2 NFL teams. However, if I were to represent the NFL, I'd rather see one of either the Raiders or Chargers plus the Jags in LA over the Bills. Both the Raiders and Jags have history in LA, are already located close enough to the city, and - most importantly - have major stadium issues at the moment. Jacksonville has little NFL history, constant sellout issues despite usually fielding a decent team, few fortune 500 companies, a metro population size about the same as Buffalo's, and lots of competition with college football/Fins/Bucs/Falcons.

 

London? Come on, now. Nevermind the travel logistics. Is there enough evidence that Londoners will support American football beyond the occasional exhibition spectacle? NFL Europe failed, yet now we're going to start moving real NFL franchises overseas?

 

One more thing: look at the New Orleans Saints. It's a market size about the same as Buffalo's, has maybe even a worse economic situation than WNY but without the Toronto or Rochester type of markets for support, and historically has an even worse NFL tradition than the Bills. Yet very recently, the franchise upgraded the Louisiana Superdome and won a Super Bowl. Now the Saints are a huge financial success. For other small market success stories, see: Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers.

[RunTheBall]

Don't underestimate the power of a Chuck (Shumer that is).

 

I am not a fan of his politics, but I am a fan of his position on The Bills in Buffalo. On more than one occasion he has made statements in regards to the Bills staying in Buffalo. He has made it clear that he thinks it is very important to the economy of WNY. I have read more than once statements from him raising the specter of anti-trust hearings. Don't think for a second that doesn't get the antennae of NFL owners up and listenng. I like Chuck.

 

RTB

[PromoTheRobot]

One more thing: look at the New Orleans Saints. It's a market size about the same as Buffalo's, has maybe even a worse economic situation than WNY but without the Toronto or Rochester type of markets for support, and historically has an even worse NFL tradition than the Bills. Yet very recently, the franchise upgraded the Louisiana Superdome and won a Super Bowl. Now the Saints are a huge financial success. For other small market success stories, see: Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers.

Yes but New Orleans is party central. A city that can host a Super Bowl any time and no one would mind. That counts for as lot. Super Bowls are really corporate affairs and having them in the Big Easy is a big draw for corporate types who want to get crazy for a weekend.

 

Look, I have no idea if this guy is full of schitt or what. He probably is. And Run The Ball is right about Schumer. He can get Goodell's attention. And for what it's worth Hillary Clinton would go to bat for Buffalo as well, from what I here. You may not like either politician but its nice to have them on your side.

 

PTR

[OCinBuffalo]

This is like the infamous "we should have traded down" logic, as it suffers from the same inherent flaw: you have to have somewhere to trade down with/move the team to, that is actually a viable option. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless. We have been overtly, and covertly, threatened by the "move to LA" story since 1999, after it became clear that nobody was moving to LA, after the debacle that was the Raiders and Rams leaving within 2 years of each other.

 

Consider: if we are to believe in the awesome economic potential of the LA market, and 2 NFL teams left it, then aren't we compelled to also believe that there must be some larger economic, and/or non-economic problems with LA that made St. Louis, and Oakland(of all places) more attractive?

 

I ask all of you: what has changed since these teams left? My answer: absolutely nothing has made LA a better town for the NFL. Much has made it worse.

LA is still an openly "hostile to the NFL" market politically, which is why both teams moved in the first place.

LA fans are still the least likely to support a NFL franchise. Think Dolphin fan, then multiply by 2.

LA is a place where people like Colin Cowherd and Ted Turner are considered "intellectuals". As long as that farce remains in place, no NFL owner will consider moving there. Think about it: These people are willing to treat George Clooney and Sean Penn as serious people when it comes to world events. What does that portend for the local NFL franchise?

 

LA is a place that will create 1000 distractions re the team, the stadium, how the team is run, pay for low level employees, green initiatives and all the rest of the nonsense. It will take 3 years, and half a billion, just to get people to stop protesting the concession stand, for Pete's sake. What owner wants the 1000s of headaches LA is guaranteed to have: like meeting with the loons and promptly being forced to fund women's interpretive dance as "an alternative cultural choice for those people who deserve to be included in the fun of attending an NFL game, but are uncomfortable with the violence of football".

 

<---you can laugh, but you know that the last one will happen. And here's what it will look like:

at 6:18

 

LA is the only place in the country where football will probably be the 4th or 5th priority of the LA NFL team.

 

Since LA, is well, LA, and Anaheim isn't an NFL town either....and since everywhere else already has an NFL team...

 

there's really no place to go. England is a pipe dream. As in, whoever thinks that's viable is smoking crack. How many FA signings will the England team get? Yeah! I want to go to a country that makes me leave home and have to fly back on 6-10 hour flights for half the season and play football games at what my body is telling me is 3 am. Seattle already has this problem. What would a London team have? Get a grip!

 

So, all of this amounts to nothing. The simple fact is that LA not having a team sticks in the craw of LA worshipers like Cowherd, which is why they will keep raising it as an issue. They can't stand that their city is considered, rightly, as being less than other cities. Cowherd, Rome, etc: Like it or not, there are too many loons in your town to make the NFL viable. Deal with it, or, clean up the political mess, and get control of the loons. Your choice.

 

Any potential NFL owner didn't get all that money by being a fool, and LA being LA, moving there is foolish.

Edited May 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[thewildrabbit]

Just to clarify: this guy made his connections while in the employ of Cooke. He now works in a field outside of football but claims to still know people in the league.

 

PTR

Is he lurking around and using the moniker of SKOOBY, per chance?

 

 

JK, PTR

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, to the topic at hand... anyone who thinks that Buffalo can't support an NFL team is not very bright, just put a perennial winner on the field and build a bigger stadium....if you build it, they will come! If Buffalo Bills fans will support 10 years of losing and mediocrity and still keep the stadium filled... imagine what would happen if the Bills were like the Patriots-Colts-Steeler's-Ravens and in the playoffs every year. The NY Giants and Washington Redskins have years of waiting lists for season tickets, meaning the only way someone gets seats is when someone gives them up, which doesn't happen often. While that won't happen in Buffalo, there is no reason to think this area will refuse to support a winning team.

 

Anyone know what happens every time the Pittsburgh Steelers play in RW stadium, it always seems like there are more Steeler fans in the stadium the Bills fans....gee I wonder why?

 

This owner while being very loyal to Buffalo fans is also not the most extravagant of owners. Bill Polian fought with him on almost every expenditure and tried to make him understand that in order to make money, you need to spend money. On top coaches, on top players, on building a winning team. Finally Polian got tired of fighting with the owner and his lackeys. I highly doubt Polian has needed to fight with any Indy exec or owner while employed with the Colts since he was hired by them. Colts fans are very pleased that RW fired Polian, they smile flash their SB banners. Those bastages and their 10+ years of winning along with their franchise QB..

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

This is like the infamous "we should have traded down" logic, as it suffers from the same inherent flaw: you have to have somewhere to trade down with/move the team to, that is actually a viable option. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless. We have been overtly, and covertly, threatened by the "move to LA" story since 1999, after it became clear that nobody was moving to LA, after the debacle that was the Raiders and Rams leaving within 2 years of each other.

 

Consider: if we are to believe in the awesome economic potential of the LA market, and 2 NFL teams left it, then aren't we compelled to also believe that there must be some larger economic, and/or non-economic problems with LA that made St. Louis, and Oakland(of all places) more attractive?

 

I ask all of you: what has changed since these teams left? My answer: absolutely nothing has made LA a better town for the NFL. Much has made it worse.

LA is still an openly "hostile to the NFL" market politically, which is why both teams moved in the first place.

LA fans are still the least likely to support a NFL franchise. Think Dolphin fan, then multiply by 2.

LA is a place where people like Colin Cowherd and Ted Turner are considered "intellectuals". As long as that farce remains in place, no NFL owner will consider moving there. Think about it: These people are willing to treat George Clooney and Sean Penn as serious people when it comes to world events. What does that portend for the local NFL franchise?

 

LA is a place that will create 1000 distractions re the team, the stadium, how the team is run, pay for low level employees, green initiatives and all the rest of the nonsense. It will take 3 years, and half a billion, just to get people to stop protesting the concession stand, for Pete's sake. What owner wants the 1000s of headaches LA is guaranteed to have: like meeting with the loons and promptly being forced to fund women's interpretive dance as "an alternative cultural choice for those people who deserve to be included in the fun of attending an NFL game, but are uncomfortable with the violence of football".

 

<---you can laugh, but you know that the last one will happen. And here's what it will look like:

at 6:18

 

LA is the only place in the country where football will probably be the 4th or 5th priority of the LA NFL team.

 

Since LA, is well, LA, and Anaheim isn't an NFL town either....and since everywhere else already has an NFL team...

 

there's really no place to go. England is a pipe dream. As in, whoever thinks that's viable is smoking crack. How many FA signings will the England team get? Yeah! I want to go to a country that makes me leave home and have to fly back on 6-10 hour flights for half the season and play football games at what my body is telling me is 3 am. Seattle already has this problem. What would a London team have? Get a grip!

 

So, all of this amounts to nothing. The simple fact is that LA not having a team sticks in the craw of LA worshipers like Cowherd, which is why they will keep raising it as an issue. They can't stand that their city is considered, rightly, as being less than other cities. Cowherd, Rome, etc: Like it or not, there are too many loons in your town to make the NFL viable. Deal with it, or, clean up the political mess, and get control of the loons. Your choice.

 

Any potential NFL owner didn't get all that money by being a fool, and LA being LA, moving there is foolish.

Some of your points I agree with - - some I don't. I don't claim to be an expert on why the Rams and Raiders left, and I'm not sure if anything significant has changed.

 

1. As I posted above in this thread, I think the NFL uses the open LA market as a way to get negotiating leverage for owners in other cities. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are 100% right about LA, that doesn't mean that the city mayors and county executives in those other cities share your point of view. If they don't, the NFL owners can still try to take advantage of such fears about losing their existing team, even if the fears are totally misguided.

 

2. With respect to whether anything significant has changed, I do have a question. Is it possible that although LA remains just as politically hostile to the NFL as ever, the thing that's changed is the political climate ELSEWHERE? It's hard to have a good sense of the political climate in places you don't actually live. But my impression is that maybe many cities were willing to pony up lots of public $ to get teams to move back in the days when the Rams and Raiders left LA, and LA essentially wouldn't match, so both teams moved. But what if ALL (or at least most) of the other major cities now have enough financial problems so that they are no more willing than LA to support an NFL team with public $? If the playing field for getting public $ is now more level in cities around the US, LA becomes relatively more attractive to NFL owners (compared to 15 - 20 years ago), not because things in LA got better, but because the political climate everywhere else got worse. I'm not claiming this is true, I'm just asking if you considered that possibility.

 

3. No question that LA has more than its share of assorted loons and nutjobs, but I'm not sure how signicant that is to sports issues. The SoCal baseball teams seem to draw pretty well. I suppose stadium approvals might be impacted because of environmental concerns or "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" Syndrome, so your point seems valid on that sub-issue.

 

4. There are people with money trying to get an NFL franchise in LA. See links above in this thread.

 

5. London may be a pipe dream, but not because of where free agents choose to sign. If the NFL owners think it will be profitable enough, they won't hesitate to go there. Whether a London franchise could attract quality free agents is a minor factor in any future London team's potential profitability, but not a major one. Ralph Wilson doesn't sign a lot of top $ free agents, and he's not going broke.

 

6. You're probably right about the general impact of the rigors of frequent flights. The "3 am" idea is way wrong, though. I don't know the exact number, but I think London is something like 5 hours ahead of the East Coast. So a 1 pm Eastern start time would be something like 6 pm back in London. Even a 1 pm west coast start time would only be something like 9 pm in London. Just avoid Sunday or Monday night games in the US, and there's no "3 am" problem.

 

7. SoCal football fans are WAAAAAY more laid back and less intense than WNY football fans, and there is lots more competition in SoCal for disposable sports fan income than in WNY. That tends to be offset, though, by the very large population in SoCal.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Edited May 14, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[OCinBuffalo]

Some of your points I agree with - - some I don't. I don't claim to be an expert on why the Rams and Raiders left, and I'm not sure if anything significant has changed.

 

1. As I posted above in this thread, I think the NFL uses the open LA market as a way to get negotiating leverage for owners in other cities. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are 100% right about LA, that doesn't mean that the city mayors and county executives in those other cities share your point of view. If they don't, the NFL owners can still try to take advantage of such fears about losing their existing team, even if the fears are totally misguided.

If I was an elected official, negotiating in good faith with my city's NFL owner, and either he or some NFL lawyer decided to pull a stunt like that on me? The press would find out 5 minutes later. Even if I lose the team, I still win the next 2 elections(thanks guys!), because I stuck up for my city and I get to contrast my city against the low-life NFL, owner, and LA politicians trying to extort "us". If I keep the team, the next time we have to negotiate, I guarantee you their asses will still be stinging from this time. It would be a major miscalculation on the NFL's part, and I would welcome it as a politician, because either way: I win.

 

So, no, unless you are talking about weak/feeble minded politicians, I don't see how LA gives the NFL much leverage at all.

2. With respect to whether anything significant has changed, I do have a question. Is it possible that although LA remains just as politically hostile to the NFL as ever, the thing that's changed is the political climate ELSEWHERE? It's hard to have a good sense of the political climate in places you don't actually live. But my impression is that maybe many cities were willing to pony up lots of public $ to get teams to move back in the days when the Rams and Raiders left LA, and LA essentially wouldn't match, so both teams moved. But what if ALL (or at least most) of the other major cities now have enough financial problems so that they are no more willing than LA to support an NFL team with public $? If the playing field for getting public $ is now more level in cities around the US, LA becomes relatively more attractive to NFL owners (compared to 15 - 20 years ago), not because things in LA got better, but because the political climate everywhere else got worse. I'm not claiming this is true, I'm just asking if you considered that possibility.

Sure. But the difference is: my position has time on it's side. It's been nearly 16 years at least, we have gone through 3 Presidents, 4 Speakers of the House, 9/11, 2, soon to be 3 wars, and 2 recessions....and nobody has gotten past the feasibility stage of moving/creating a new team in LA. How much more potential for political/financial/socioeconomic climates to change do you require?

 

Isn't it time to conclude: LA is simply a sucky football town where loons and dirtbags outnumber rational people 4 to 1?

 

This isn't like the Cleveland Browns thing. It's just been too long.

3. No question that LA has more than its share of assorted loons and nutjobs, but I'm not sure how signicant that is to sports issues. The SoCal baseball teams seem to draw pretty well. I suppose stadium approvals might be impacted because of environmental concerns or "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" Syndrome, so your point seems valid on that sub-issue.

Baseball is not football. Nor is hockey or basketball. Football meets 8 times a year, and that's 40% of a team's revenue. It's all or nothing, especially when one considers the cost of doing business in LA vs. Buffalo, or Pittsburgh, etc. Football has a less tolerant business model. You can save a hockey/baseball season attendance-wise, because you have more time and games = margin for error. You miss 2 sell outs in a row in football and you are in big trouble.

 

Nobody cares about 20k people going to-from an indoor stadium/baseball game. OTOH, 50k-80k people getting on the highway, especially in LA, is a major friggin problem. NIMBY is a concern yes, but that's only dealing the the rational people. The loons are going to be finding hoops for the team/city/stadium developer to jump through ad infinitum, and they will get help, not restraint, from the local politicians and judges.

 

Which LA judge is going to rule AGAINST the mandatory interpretive dance alternative for those people that demand the "equality" of being able to attend the football game, but don't want to watch football? Which LA county/city legislator is going to vote AGAINST the law that says the stadium has to incur 5x the operating cost of other stadiums so that it can be "green", or vote AGAINST the law that says the concession stands cannot serve processed meat and/or fried foods? Which LA mayor/county executive is going to lock up the legions of protesters disrupting every game for one inane reason or another?

 

The NFL is the NFL, which also means it's the NFL for every LA loon looking to attract attention for their retarded cause and/or force their totalitarian agenda on others and do so on a national scale.

4. There are people with money trying to get an NFL franchise in LA. See links above in this thread.

There were 15 years ago, and every 2 or so years we keep hearing rumors. You would have a point if we were only talking about 7 years, or even 10. We are not, so you don't.

 

There have been serious efforts by people with serious money in the past, yet nothing. These guys don't just wake up one day and decide to drop $1.5 billion on a football team. No. Way before that, they drop $300k on a marketing study, $200k on political policy research and lobbyists, and on and on. There have been people who have spent that money, and they keep walking away before they start dropping the $1 million on architects or land/environmental studies.

 

Nobody has gotten into anything that gets the idea out of the "paper phase". There has to be a reason for that, and the simplest explanation is: these potential owners don't like what the paper they pay for ends up telling them, so there's no point in dropping the bigger cash.

5. London may be a pipe dream, but not because of where free agents choose to sign. If the NFL owners think it will be profitable enough, they won't hesitate to go there. Whether a London franchise could attract quality free agents is a minor factor in any future London team's potential profitability, but not a major one. Ralph Wilson doesn't sign a lot of top $ free agents, and he's not going broke.

As we have seen with the Toronto series, profit only takes a back seat to one thing in the NFL: brand.

 

The second they think that a net negative effect will result from the series, they will turn on us like a mother in law, because we made the NFL look silly. Same thing is true for the England team. They almost have to make the playoff every year, and will have to win a SB at least once in the first 10 years, for that franchise to have any chance. In order to meet those requirements: they MUST sign FAs. That's how this league works now, like it or not.

6. You're probably right about the general impact of the rigors of frequent flights. The "3 am" idea is way wrong, though. I don't know the exact number, but I think London is something like 5 hours ahead of the East Coast. So a 1 pm Eastern start time would be something like 6 pm back in London. Even a 1 pm west coast start time would only be something like 9 pm in London. Just avoid Sunday or Monday night games in the US, and there's no "3 am" problem.

Wrong. I specifically said 3am because I was specifically referring to Monday and Sunday night games which tend to start around 8:30 EST, and 3 am body clock time would be around the start of the second half. The only way the England team becomes relevant, and therefore work, is if it is good. The good teams play those night games, they aren't going to screw up the rest of the league and their TV money, just for one team. Period. I understand your conditions, but, I don't think they will get past the competition committee, never mind the rest of the NFL. Why should one team get special consideration in a league that is supposed to be about parity?

7. SoCal football fans are WAAAAAY more laid back and less intense than WNY football fans, and there is lots more competition in SoCal for disposable sports fan income than in WNY. That tends to be offset, though, by the very large population in SoCal.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Again, LA fans are like Dolphin fans x2. Nothing sums it up better than that.

 

In contrast to the rest of the country, WNY is also very laid back. Disposable sports income is a wash. These aren't valid comparisons.

 

You cannot develop the same intensity for your team as NY people have for theirs if you have already left the stadium by the 2nd quarter.

 

If you have a schitty culture where that's acceptable, then you have larger problems than no NFL team. This is what sticks it in Cowherd, etc. The reason they don't have a football team is: their culture sucks, and they know it. They will never admit it, but their culture is inferior to the rest of the country, and we are provided with examples every other day.

 

The only reason that the Rams are gone, and the Dolphins aren't, is that the Dolphins have never been really bad for more than 2-3 years. IF Miami had ended up with Jim "Chris" Everett instead of Dan Marino, they would have been the Carolina Dolphins....decades ago.

Edited May 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

If I was an elected official, negotiating in good faith with my city's NFL owner, and either he or some NFL lawyer decided to pull a stunt like that on me? The press would find out 5 minutes later. Even if I lose the team, I still win the next 2 elections(thanks guys!), because I stuck up for my city and I get to contrast my city against the low-life NFL, owner, and LA politicians trying to extort "us". If I keep the team, the next time we have to negotiate, I guarantee you their asses will still be stinging from this time. It would be a major miscalculation on the NFL's part, and I would welcome it as a politician, because either way: I win.

 

So, no, unless you are talking about weak/feeble minded politicians, I don't see how LA gives the NFL much leverage at all.

 

Sure. But the difference is: my position has time on it's side. It's been nearly 16 years at least, we have gone through 3 Presidents, 4 Speakers of the House, 9/11, 2, soon to be 3 wars, and 2 recessions....and nobody has gotten past the feasibility stage of moving/creating a new team in LA. How much more potential for political/financial/socioeconomic climates to change do you require?

 

Isn't it time to conclude: LA is simply a sucky football town where loons and dirtbags outnumber rational people 4 to 1?

 

This isn't like the Cleveland Browns thing. It's just been too long.

 

Baseball is not football. Nor is hockey or basketball. Football meets 8 times a year, and that's 40% of a team's revenue. It's all or nothing, especially when one considers the cost of doing business in LA vs. Buffalo, or Pittsburgh, etc. Football has a less tolerant business model. You can save a hockey/baseball season attendance-wise, because you have more time and games = margin for error. You miss 2 sell outs in a row in football and you are in big trouble.

 

Nobody cares about 20k people going to-from an indoor stadium/baseball game. OTOH, 50k-80k people getting on the highway, especially in LA, is a major friggin problem. NIMBY is a concern yes, but that's only dealing the the rational people. The loons are going to be finding hoops for the team/city/stadium developer to jump through ad infinitum, and they will get help, not restraint, from the local politicians and judges.

 

Which LA judge is going to rule AGAINST the mandatory interpretive dance alternative for those people that demand the "equality" of being able to attend the football game, but don't want to watch football? Which LA county/city legislator is going to vote AGAINST the law that says the stadium has to incur 5x the operating cost of other stadiums so that it can be "green", or vote AGAINST the law that says the concession stands cannot serve processed meat and/or fried foods? Which LA mayor/county executive is going to lock up the legions of protesters disrupting every game for one inane reason or another?

 

The NFL is the NFL, which also means it's the NFL for every LA loon looking to attract attention for their retarded cause and/or force their totalitarian agenda on others and do so on a national scale.

 

There were 15 years ago, and every 2 or so years we keep hearing rumors. You would have a point if we were only talking about 7 years, or even 10. We are not, so you don't.

 

There have been serious efforts by people with serious money in the past, yet nothing. These guys don't just wake up one day and decide to drop $1.5 billion on a football team. No. Way before that, they drop $300k on a marketing study, $200k on political policy research and lobbyists, and on and on. There have been people who have spent that money, and they keep walking away before they start dropping the $1 million on architects or land/environmental studies.

 

Nobody has gotten into anything that gets the idea out of the "paper phase". There has to be a reason for that, and the simplest explanation is: these potential owners don't like what the paper they pay for ends up telling them, so there's no point in dropping the bigger cash.

 

As we have seen with the Toronto series, profit only takes a back seat to one thing in the NFL: brand.

 

The second they think that a net negative effect will result from the series, they will turn on us like a mother in law, because we made the NFL look silly. Same thing is true for the England team. They almost have to make the playoff every year, and will have to win a SB at least once in the first 10 years, for that franchise to have any chance. In order to meet those requirements: they MUST sign FAs. That's how this league works now, like it or not.

 

Wrong. I specifically said 3am because I was specifically referring to Monday and Sunday night games which tend to start around 8:30 EST, and 3 am body clock time would be around the start of the second half. The only way the England team becomes relevant, and therefore work, is if it is good. The good teams play those night games, they aren't going to screw up the rest of the league and their TV money, just for one team. Period. I understand your conditions, but, I don't think they will get past the competition committee, never mind the rest of the NFL. Why should one team get special consideration in a league that is supposed to be about parity?

 

Again, LA fans are like Dolphin fans x2. Nothing sums it up better than that.

 

In contrast to the rest of the country, WNY is also very laid back. Disposable sports income is a wash. These aren't valid comparisons.

 

You cannot develop the same intensity for your team as NY people have for theirs if you have already left the stadium by the 2nd quarter.

 

If you have a schitty culture where that's acceptable, then you have larger problems than no NFL team. This is what sticks it in Cowherd, etc. The reason they don't have a football team is: their culture sucks, and they know it. They will never admit it, but their culture is inferior to the rest of the country, and we are provided with examples every other day.

 

The only reason that the Rams are gone, and the Dolphins aren't, is that the Dolphins have never been really bad for more than 2-3 years. IF Miami had ended up with Jim "Chris" Everett instead of Dan Marino, they would have been the Carolina Dolphins....decades ago.

I know that I have the right to remain silent, but sometimes I just don't have the ability.

 

From a larger perspective, we seem to agree that LA is not going to get an NFL team any time soon - - we just disagree about why.

 

1. We agree that the LA market has been open for at least 14 years. It's certainly possible that I simply missed it, but I cannot recall one time during those 14 years where an elected official called a press conference to point out that the lowlife owner of the city's NFL team had threatened to move the team to LA. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing your position will be that no such press conference ever occurred because no such threat was ever made. I'm dubious, but admit that I cannot prove you wrong. BTW, you might actually get my vote if you ran for office, but I'm not sure you'd win. Maybe in Montana.

 

2. Glad to hear you considered the possibility that maybe the political climate got worse elsewhere while LA stayed the same - - that gives your arguments more weight in my view. It seems likely to me that, based on the "OC" in your screen name, a logical but not necessarily required reference to "Anaheim" in one of your above posts in this thread, and the right-of-center political leanings evidenced by your "signature" (if that's the right term) in each post, you've actually lived in Orange County. Admittedly, that makes you more of an expert on LA than most people who post here. FWIW, I concluded a long time ago that LA is simply a sucky football town where loons and dirtbags almost outnumber rational people. We only disagree about the ratio. I'd put it at about 49/51. But from an NFL owners' perspective, a dollar from the loons and dirtbags is worth the same as a dollar from you.

 

3. "Which LA judge is going to rule AGAINST the mandatory interpretive dance alternative for those people that demand the "equality" of being able to attend the football game, but don't want to watch football?"

 

I've lived in several areas of the country, and spent significant amounts of time for work in a few more. Before he became a judge, I played poker and watched ESPN at presently undisclosed times and locations more than once with this guy - - From http://www.dgs.ca.gov/oah/About/OAHOffices.aspx

 

"ALJ Howard W. Cohen has been an Administrative Law Judge with the Los Angeles regional office of the Office of Administrative Hearings since October 2009. ALJ Cohen received his bachelor's degree from UCLA in biology. ALJ Cohen received his juris doctorate degree from the University of Michigan Law School. ALJ Cohen has completed the required training necessary to conduct mediations and administrative hearings."

 

I'm pretty confident I know how he would rule on the "mandatory interpretive dance alternative" issue.

 

I agree with you that stadium approvals are likely to take longer in LA than most places, and freeway congestion is a consideration (though not insurmountable). Most of your remaining statements on point #3 exhibit more than just the usual satire of LA "culture" - - they border on vitriol. I'm big on personal privacy, so I won't criticize you if you choose not to answer, but when you were in Orange County did you lose a court case, get divorced, get laid off or get swindled by somebody? OC to Buffalo is a somewhat unusual move if I'm reading between the lines accurately (and I certainly might not be - - reading between the lines is always risky).

 

4. I can't force you to use google, but I know you can because the link you kindly provided in my "Reorganizing The Scouting Department" thread had some pretty funny stuff in it.

 

5. You make some good points here - - my only disagreement is how much the franchise would have to win to "have any chance." I think that's something about which reasonable minds can legitimately differ.

 

6. "Why should one team get special consideration in a league that is supposed to be about parity?"

 

A London franchise could make a pretty forceful argument that special consideration was required to MAINTAIN parity. They simply argue that they are already at a competitive disadvantage because their team makes an international flight 8 times a season, whereas no other team has to do it more than once. They would argue that avoiding Sunday and Monday night games reduces the existing competitive disadvantage that is already forced on them by geography - - bringing them back closer to parity.

 

7. "In contrast to the rest of the country, WNY is also very laid back. ... You cannot develop the same intensity for your team as NY people have for theirs if you have already left the stadium by the 2nd quarter"

 

This is internally inconsistent. LA sports fans do leave early, but that is evidence of how laid back they are compared to WNY.

 

Ive been to football games in several places, but never in Miami. I also don't know anything about Cowherd, so I have no basis to comment about either of them.

Edited May 15, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Roger Goodell]

3) the NFL got killed for moving the Browns.

 

Yeah, we never recovered from that one. At least until everyone outside of Cleveland stopped caring two weeks later.