Godell may just save the Bills afterall...

[mEAz]

Keep in mind if you run the numbers anywhere your ROI is pretty poor. If you go to LA (a place that has already lost 2 teams due to lack of interest) you have to lay out close to $800M and also over $1B for a stadium....likely a lot more for CA real estate, parking etc.... If you put down $500M cash you are still financing $1.5B not to mention relocation fee. So at 6% you are paying a good $100M in just interest a year....so all of your TV revenue essnetially goes just to interest and not even principal on your debt!

I really think people overestimate the ability of all of these other places to get a team and make money. They will be lucky to make $20M a year.....considered good for a sports franchise. People want to own them for the prestige, the love of the game etc....But those who think it is for ROI are sadly mistaken unless you are buying, making a little money and then plan on selling it in a few years and that is not what the NFL wants.

 

 

The problem with your scenario is that you are assuming this is a free standing stadium...it isn't...the entertainment company that is having the plans finalized for a new stadium is the same one that owns the Nokia arena, and if I'm not mistaken, the Staples Cemter...the stadium is going right in the same neighborhood along with shopping and other forms of revenue....that being said, I'm not a fan of this discussion because I think it typifies the kind of attitude that never moves our town forward...gloom and doom never gets us anywhere. Let's start enjoying our city and our teams, help improve our region, and when the time comes someone will try and step up...all we can do is have a positive attitude to turn this region around

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Bills local TV ratings are typically either number one or number two in terms of the "share". So when the Bills play more households in the Buffalo area are watching them play than any other market.....it is typically either the Bills or Green Bay at number one/two.

I know the Buffalo region was number one for the NFL Draft this year as well!

And you're right the Bils region is huge. Go up and stay in Toronto and watch the Buffalo affiliates there....we're not as small as some like to say. Toronto is the number 5 market in North America but take Toronto out of the equation and say just Hamilton thru Rochester as the Bills market and there you have population of 3.5M people.....hardly a small population base.

 

 

That's not the point. The point is, would the NFL lose many of those households if they left the area, is the area likely to lose more population, would another area provide MORE viewers, and do the other owners and the networks believe they will get higher overall ratings if the Bills moved. It's as much about perception as it is about statistics.

 

I already stated that I don't think they will move. But I also believe that there are many owners that would prefer they moved. We can start with Jerry Jones.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[BADOLBILZ]

my thoughts exactly. And besides there aren't enough good QB's for the current 32 teams!!!! how much more watered down do they want it to get?

 

Oh I think Goodell realizes he struck roster gold with the new rules/emphasis on protecting QB's and WR's.

 

It has opened up the path to success for a lot of sub-par QB's. Especially the guys who just couldn't stand up to the abuse. And there have always been a fair amount of those guys, talented passers on benches and early retired.

 

Look at the Bills. When Kelly was around he would get beaten to a pulp most seasons. If he got a concussion, he would be expected to play next week. Ryan Fitzmagic? He gets hit in the rib pads once and people are holding a candlelight vigil for his game. I mean, that's really all the abuse he took all year. I think he took more hits as Trent Edwards' backup.

 

Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers who were getting concussions every other week a few years back? They barely had a finger laid on them last year. You had what.....4 guys throw for over 5,000 yards???? These guys are going to play longer and better than ever and the rookies are going to come in and "defy the odds' by having first year success.

 

As the QB's go, so does the roster so I'm thinking roster expansion is back on the table.

[beerme1]

Keep in mind if you run the numbers anywhere your ROI is pretty poor. If you go to LA (a place that has already lost 2 teams due to lack of interest) you have to lay out close to $800M and also over $1B for a stadium....likely a lot more for CA real estate, parking etc.... If you put down $500M cash you are still financing $1.5B not to mention relocation fee. So at 6% you are paying a good $100M in just interest a year....so all of your TV revenue essnetially goes just to interest and not even principal on your debt!

I really think people overestimate the ability of all of these other places to get a team and make money. They will be lucky to make $20M a year.....considered good for a sports franchise. People want to own them for the prestige, the love of the game etc....But those who think it is for ROI are sadly mistaken unless you are buying, making a little money and then plan on selling it in a few years and that is not what the NFL wants.

 

 

I like your thinking Ray. You know what? I think there's a place for you in this organization when I get it. You're hired!

 

Wait a minute, what if some unsentimental unemotionally involved person like a Golisano gets it? It's ALL about ROI.

[spartacus]

I think the "diluted talent" argument is weak. I don't think 2 more crappy teams would change the overall appeal of the league. As far as the "LA won't support a team" argument, attendance was more important when the teams left, and it could be argued that they didn't leave because of poor attendance, but for other reasons. What the NFL wants is the TV ratings from Southern California. They think they will get more viewers if they have a team/teams in LA.

 

I don't think the Bills will move, but neither of those arguments are likely to convince other owners to keep them in Buffalo.

 

The NFL already gets the TV ratings in LA- for the best games of each week

 

with a local team that would not sell out - games would be blacked out as they were when the raiders and rams played there -

 

so much for TV ratings

 

The league wants to continue using the threat of a move to LA to extort stadium deals from taxpayers in other cities

 

They don't actually want a team in LA

 

 

[Thoner7]

i think he's bluffing. Since Minnesota is already giving the vikings a stadium, and the Niners are getting a new one, the only one left who needs leverage is San Diego.

 

The league has hinted, and fans will agree, that adding teams would water down the quality of the rosters. There's already not enuf quarterbacks to go around. Also, with the concussion rules and with possible 18 game schedules, they may need to expand the size of existing rosters anyway.

 

Nope, they arent going to 34 teams. (caveat: Unless they plan to add one in London because zero usa owners want to move, then it might make sense to balance it out with an even number, by adding another usa team. Maybe.)

 

The Bucaneers want out of Tampa, bad. Either to LA (where half the heirs to the team live already) and they are also first in line to move a team to London if it ever happens, it won't, but they have already expressed interest.

 

Jax I have heard speculation that they would gladly go to LA (and prob should). Florida has too many teams already, and none of them do well. 3 NFL teams, plus college ball is king down there. People near Jacksonville are Gator fans, not Jags fans, Canes fans over Dolphish fans, etc. Plus there is Florida St, Central Flordia, hell I went to a South Florida game vs UConn last year on a Saturday and then the Bucs/Falcons game Sunday and there was maybe 15-20% more fans at the Bucs game.... they can barely compete with South Florida!?!?!

 

More teams is a bad idea, there aren't enough fans to go around already.

[Mr. WEO]

That's not the point. The point is, would the NFL lose many of those households if they left the area, is the area likely to lose more population, would another area provide MORE viewers, and do the other owners and the networks believe they will get higher overall ratings if the Bills moved. It's as much about perception as it is about statistics.

 

I already stated that I don't think they will move. But I also believe that there are many owners that would prefer they moved. We can start with Jerry Jones.

 

Link?

 

Oh I think Goodell realizes he struck roster gold with the new rules/emphasis on protecting QB's and WR's.

 

It has opened up the path to success for a lot of sub-par QB's. Especially the guys who just couldn't stand up to the abuse. And there have always been a fair amount of those guys, talented passers on benches and early retired.

 

Look at the Bills. When Kelly was around he would get beaten to a pulp most seasons. If he got a concussion, he would be expected to play next week. Ryan Fitzmagic? He gets hit in the rib pads once and people are holding a candlelight vigil for his game. I mean, that's really all the abuse he took all year. I think he took more hits as Trent Edwards' backup.

 

Guys like Big Ben and Rodgers who were getting concussions every other week a few years back? They barely had a finger laid on them last year. You had what.....4 guys throw for over 5,000 yards???? These guys are going to play longer and better than ever and the rookies are going to come in and "defy the odds' by having first year success.

 

As the QB's go, so does the roster so I'm thinking roster expansion is back on the table.

 

Can you name all of the sub-par QBs on benches for whom the "new rules on protecting QBs and WRs" have "opened up the path to success"?

 

And the "4 guys" who passed for over 5000 yards (there were 3) were three of the best QBs in the NFL.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The NFL already gets the TV ratings in LA- for the best games of each week

 

with a local team that would not sell out - games would be blacked out as they were when the raiders and rams played there -

 

so much for TV ratings

 

The league wants to continue using the threat of a move to LA to extort stadium deals from taxpayers in other cities

 

They don't actually want a team in LA

 

The blackouts appear to be on the way out (mainly because TV ratings have become more important than gate attendance). I realize that the league uses LA as leverage against cities, but LA isn't the only place the Bills could move. And what backs up a threat by a team to move, better than an example of a team moving? As in "if you don't give us what we want, we will move. And if you don't believe we will back that up, look what happened in Buffalo". Pretty good threat, no?

 

I already said I didn't think they would move, but dismissing the possibility seems unrealistic.As I said, the perceptions of any new owner, the other owners, and the TV networks are what matter. I think many perceive "the Buffalo Region" as a declining population, a place that will continue to watch NFL anyway, and a place that won't yield maximum returns. I don't think there is much support from other owners to keep the Bills in Buffalo , and that makes them more vulnerable to being moved by a new owner.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Dragonborn10]

Nothing naive about it. We support our team just fine. You would be hard pressed to find a time when its fans supported and sold out the stadium for a team that loses ss much as we have in the past decade.

Look up Cleveland Browns, 1995

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Link?

 

 

 

 

 

Which part do you want a link to? I mostly posed questions. Other than that, you want a link about Jerry Jones wanting the Bills to move? You can search that yourself, it was mentioned plenty during the union negotiations.

 

"Link?" What a ****.

 

WEO, you have been following the NFL closely enough to know about those rumors, without a link. Yes, I believe some "rumors", especially ones that make sense.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[RTW2012]

No--see MLB and NHL.

 

Anyway, the QB is key. If there was so much NFL caliber talent at the position available, you wouldn't have seen guys like Curtis Painter, Caleb Hanie, Josh Mckown, Tyler Palko, John Beck and Tyler Thigpen as backups.

 

Exactly. Back when there were only 26-28 teams the league had stellar backup QBs like Gary Marangi, Dan Manucci and David Humm.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Exactly. Back when there were only 26-28 teams the league had stellar backup QBs like Gary Marangi, Dan Manucci and David Humm.

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

Link?

 

 

 

Can you name all of the sub-par QBs on benches for whom the "new rules on protecting QBs and WRs" have "opened up the path to success"?

 

And the "4 guys" who passed for over 5000 yards (there were 3) were three of the best QBs in the NFL.

 

You are technically correct about the amount of passers to hit 5K. But thou doth protest too much.

 

Eli Manning finished with 4933 yards which was the SIXTH HIGHEST SINGLE SEASON TOTAL in NFL history.

 

Aaron Rodgers finished 350 yards short of 5K after sitting out (healthy) the season finale. Otherwise he likely surpasses Eli and probably clears 5K himself. In his place, the "bench" QB Matt Flynn threw for 480 yards and 6 TD's that day.

 

Four of the top six highest single season passing yardage totals happened THIS SEASON!

 

Now, it is easier to put up good passing numbers.......as I said already........but you don't put up FIVE THOUSAND yards unless you are out there every week.

 

So, your point about the QB's on benches?

 

Who cares?

 

The starting QB is going to take those snaps now. They aren't going to be sitting out as often with concussions or other injuries related to contact while passing the ball.

 

And all that production this season was put up WITHOUT the longtime ironmen of the old, less passer friendly NFL....... Brett Favre and Peyton Manning..........taking any snaps in the NFL last year. Woe is the NFL for losing perhaps it's two most prolific passers of all time in the same season.... and yet somehow league-wide passing production goes UP?????

 

You think fragile former QB's like Chris Chandler and Chris Miller wish they were playing in today's NFL? There have been plenty of QB's who had the talent to succeed but their bodies couldn't take the pounding. Aaron Rogers and Matthew Stafford may very well have been too fragile to last in the old NFL. Today, they are 5K passers and nobody is fretting their future health.

 

Face it, young QB's like Cam Newton will come in and play well and stay in the lineup. There will be less busts at QB. Where as a guy like Drew Brees came into the league and labored for 4 seasons before he established himself, a lesser talent like Andy Dalton can come right in and have moderate success immediately.

 

A guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick, who would not have been starter material in the league 5 years ago, will be able to play well enough to look statistically average at least based on the numbers that QB's had put up in the previous 10 years.

 

I'm not saying the players are any different. But the game IS. It's just that it's easier to play the position AND to stay healhty now.

 

Basically, QB's in the NFL today are comparable to the sluggers in MLB during the steroid era. Except this is league mandated, legal and sustainable. The greats get GREATER and stay healthier. The average will put up above average numbers now. The rising tide of quarterback play will raise all ships........but having a great one will still separate the winners from the losers.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Dick Drawn

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Jesus. The Bills weren't going anywhere in the first place. Can we stop beating the dead horse already?

Amen!

[ET1062]

Expansion means that there will be two more teams making the playoffs before the Bills do.

[8-8 Forever?]

Jesus. The Bills weren't going anywhere in the first place. Can we stop beating the dead horse already?

If the high bidder wants to pay all the costs the move the team (new stadium, etc), the team will move. As long as I play by the leagues rules regarding stadium size, etc. if I pay $800 million for something, I will do what I damn well please with it.

[Webster Guy]

When you combine the lowest ticket prices in the League, probably the fewest corporate sponsors/sponsorship opportunities and the fact that most of the shared revenue comes from TV and unshared revenue (which a new owner would covet) comes from said corporate sponsors/suites, unfortunately the factors you mentioned don't count for much. The team will likely only stay in Buffalo if the new owner has a tie to the region....

According to Forbes Magazine, the Bills are among the league's 10 most profitable teams. The data is part of the magazine's annual valuations of all NFL Franchises. Forbes ranks the Bills ninth, with an annual operating income of $40.9 million (that's after they pay the players). And it's more than the Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New York Jets each make.

 

It's also more than triple what the Miami Dolphins or Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers take away.

 

So if the team sells for 750M and the new owner puts the typical 20% cash down (150m), the financing of the remaining 600m at 30 years 4.5% would be about $3M per month. This would give the owner about a 2% cash on cash return (better than the S&P did this year) and in 30 years he would own the franchise outright.

 

This does not account for the increase in revenue from a winning team, these are numbers based on having a losing team for a decade.

 

So I disagree with your comment on ticket prices and corporate revenue (shared or unshared) being a major factor. Financing cares only about the net operating income and whether or not my customers will consistently want my product. The Bills offer both.

[Mr. WEO]

Good points.

 

"Where life is worth living."

[vorpma]

The only reason this discussion is happening at all is because the economy of New York, primarily Western New York is in the tank and has been for over thirty years. There is a continuous brain drain from western New York and with it goes the entertainment dollar, not to mention Corporations can find much friendly locations to operate from. I love western New York and want the Bills to stay forever, however, the area remains in freefall. I for one agree with Tom Brady's comments about Hotels in the area - just another indicator of the poor situation. When do we say enough and start forcing elected officials to create a business friendly environment to not only keep the Bills - but bring back jobs and business!

[BADOLBILZ]

According to Forbes Magazine, the Bills are among the league's 10 most profitable teams. The data is part of the magazine's annual valuations of all NFL Franchises. Forbes ranks the Bills ninth, with an annual operating income of $40.9 million (that's after they pay the players). And it's more than the Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New York Jets each make.

 

It's also more than triple what the Miami Dolphins or Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers take away.

 

So if the team sells for 750M and the new owner puts the typical 20% cash down (150m), the financing of the remaining 600m at 30 years 4.5% would be about $3M per month. This would give the owner about a 2% cash on cash return (better than the S&P did this year) and in 30 years he would own the franchise outright.

 

This does not account for the increase in revenue from a winning team, these are numbers based on having a losing team for a decade.

 

So I disagree with your comment on ticket prices and corporate revenue (shared or unshared) being a major factor. Financing cares only about the net operating income and whether or not my customers will consistently want my product. The Bills offer both.

 

You are very correct, the Bills are very profitable despite being by some measures, the worst team in the league the past decade ( for instance, postseason appearances; zero)

 

My belief, and I think it is backed by a lot of salary data, is that Ralph plays the spending game one way or another. If he has a team that is close to winning a championship, he spends heavily to try to win. If not, he cuts corners and goes to those owners meetings with a smile because he is at least beating most teams at the cash register.

 

But back to your point......if the Bills actually started winning regularly......or even BETTER, if they were winning and also got their own young Peyton Manning-type franchise QB......the ability of the team to charge more for tickets, sell more luxury boxes, and earn more unshared revenue could increase dramatically.

 

I point to Indianapolis, where Peyton Manning basically got a stadium built in one of the most unlikely of NFL cities. I mean, if Manning hadn't appeared and the Colts went on a 12 year losing streak like the Bills, would Indy even have a team now? Not a chance, I say.

 

There is a lot of untapped earning AND franchise value increasing potential for this team right where it is.