JPS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Not me. I think playing in Toronto is the right thing to do. It makes the Bills less likely to move. This series gives the Bills the chance to compete with the Jerruhs and Bob Krafts of the league by generating income that is not shared. As for being the "right thing", right for whom? The fans who stay away in December? Who accuse OBD of every conspiracy? Like someone earlier posted, buy some damn tickets. Otherwise STFU. PTR Well, I used to be a passionate 8 season ticket holder for 15 years guy (including 4 clubs) and prior to last year I decided enough was enough. It's just not entertaining to watch your team get crushed every year. I owe no duty to the Bills or to anyone with a higher pain tolerance than I. And I also chose to (at least for these forum's purposes) hold the FO's feet to the fire when they make questionable decisions. Is that wrong? Or is it just pissing in everyone's Cheerios? When and if the Bills are competitive, I will again fly to Buffalo for 3-4 games a year because it is truly a unique and mostly enjoyable experience. That's just the way it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So, I guess the implication is the Jags and the Browns were sold on credit? The purchase would have never passed the finance committee if each new owner did not have significant cash up front. Don't kid yourself. My opinion remains uninfluenced by the Koolaid showers on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 B. The Bills only have excess inventory for one reason and for one reason only, and it has NOTHING to do with ticket prices. They have played one meaninful home game in December in the past 13 years . End of story! This argument always makes me laugh. Even when the Bills were competitive and I'm talking Super Bowl years, they still had trouble selling out games in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I apologize for not providing the link previously. ok but watch it This argument always makes me laugh. Even when the Bills were competitive and I'm talking Super Bowl years, they still had trouble selling out games in December. yeah but those games were always like 2000 tickets short not 20,000 ... and they usually sold out by game time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 we are also talking like 20 years ago and a completely different time. The Bills are so quick to report they have been successful at regionalizing, it should be no problem to sell out a stadium, which is smaller than it was 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 ok but watch it yeah but those games were always like 2000 tickets short not 20,000 ... and they usually sold out by game time But still, point remains. The product on the field was the arguably the best in the NFL and yet the fans didn't come out in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So, I guess the implication is the Jags and the Browns were sold on credit? The purchase would have never passed the finance committee if each new owner did not have significant cash up front. Don't kid yourself. My opinion remains uninfluenced by the Koolaid showers on this board. ...I agree especially after the bank collapse no bank is going to finance 100% of anything UNLESS the borrower is putting up a huge chunk of collateral besides the one they are purchasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) So, I guess the implication is the Jags and the Browns were sold on credit? The purchase would have never passed the finance committee if each new owner did not have significant cash up front. Don't kid yourself. My opinion remains uninfluenced by the Koolaid showers on this board. Many NFL teams are sold with significant amount of loans. I'm not sure what you think happens. Do you think most teams are bought outright with cash in the NFL? That's crazy. Hell, Jerry Jones financed a good chunk of his new stadium. Edited January 29, 2013 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Many NFL teams are sold with significant amount of loans. I'm not sure what you think happens. Do you think most teams are bought upfront with cash in the NFL? If you made more sense, I'd care what you called me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) If you made more sense, I'd care what you called me. I presented you with actual facts. I assume 'sense' in this case means 'agree with whatever I say'. I'm sorry, but there is little to back you up that there is some sort of secret pot of gold for the NFL in Buffalo. Here's information from the one team that reports publicly: The Packers earn much less than they did four years ago. Their operating profit fell 71 percent from $34.2 million in the year ended March 31, 2007 (which coincides with the start of the previous collective-bargaining agreement), to $9.8 million in the year ended last March 31. Revenue rose 18 percent in that period to $257.9 million.The primary reason for the sharply reduced profit was player costs (salaries and benefits), which swelled in those years to $160.8 million from $110.7 million. Edited January 29, 2013 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Funny, it's been an issue for most NFL owners. You may also want to see Snyder, Daniel. He financed almost all of the redskins and assumed debt. So now that you're offbase and wrong, has your opinion changed? The bills are reported to make roughly 30 million a year. As previously stated, this isn't exactly a large amount considering their lack of loan payments. I think you have that backwards---that's a huge chunk of change when you don't have loan payments. In fact, it's like 30 million dollars of extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 But still, point remains. The product on the field was the arguably the best in the NFL and yet the fans didn't come out in December. Every December game during the Superbowl years had over 70,000+ attendance. That's attendance not just sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holmz56 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The Bills do well on this and I won't have to pay for a meaningless pre-season game !I like it ! I would love for Mr.Brandon to let us ,the season ticket holders , decide on what regular season game to give to Toronto ! For that matter , we might as well decide on the pre-season game ,too ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) I think you have that backwards---that's a huge chunk of change when you don't have loan payments. In fact, it's like 30 million dollars of extra money. A new owner would have loan payments. You know that, but decided to purposely misunderstand for some reason. Edited January 29, 2013 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I presented you with actual facts. I assume 'sense' in this case means 'agree with whatever I say'. I'm sorry, but there is little to back you up that there is some sort of secret pot of gold for the NFL in Buffalo. Here's information from the one team that reports publicly: This is my last comment on this silliness. You threw out a number of 700M/30M profit =23 years to pay off. This assumes no up-front cash. I am sure there is financing, but I am also sure the new owners plunk down 100M or so to get it by the committee. The Bills getting an additional 7M/year for whoring their game out to a disinterested Toronto market is irrelevant to their attractiveness to the next owner and, further, it is horrible for the on-field product. If you think this makes sense, I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 This is my last comment on this silliness. You threw out a number of 700M/30M profit =23 years to pay off. This assumes no up-front cash. I am sure there is financing, but I am also sure the new owners plunk down 100M or so to get it by the committee. The Bills getting an additional 7M/year for whoring their game out to a disinterested Toronto market is irrelevant to their attractiveness to the next owner and, further, it is horrible for the on-field product. If you think this makes sense, I disagree. Again, you're entirely off on your facts. $11.14 million per game, more than double what the team clears from each home game at Ralph Wilson Stadium, according to a Buffalo News report.' http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/28/exclusive-buffalo-bills-to-keep-playing-in-toronto-for-5-more-years The Bills are valued at 797 million actually so there is your 100 million in cash. Keep in mind, I also ignored interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 This argument always makes me laugh. Even when the Bills were competitive and I'm talking Super Bowl years, they still had trouble selling out games in December. Stadium capacity was 80,000 back then and while the games may not have sold out in time to lift the blackout there were always 70-75K at the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) For season tix holders, biggest bummer is that we continue to "eat" the 2 preseason games ourselves, while - for all Bills fans (AND the team's players) - ceding a home game to neutral ground in a foreign land. But, financially, the deal makes sense for the long-term viability of the franchise. And - as I stated when all this Toronto crap started - in case of future expansion, Ralph is a genius to have established Southern Ontario as Bills' territory. Any future Toronto team would still have to, IMHO, pay a hefty tithe to the Bills for us to cede our claim on that turf. JMO... GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! . Edited January 29, 2013 by The Senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Toronto Sun "Neither side is expected to reveal on Tuesday how much Rogers is paying the Bills for the five-year extension, but a source in May said the amount would be "significantly" less than $78 million" Sounds like $7M/ game is a reasonable estimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Put a team on the field russ how hard is that. This franchise boggles my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts