Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Naming rights to the stadium? Certainly a good option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Certainly a good option you may be a good one to ask - is it simply ego that has made this not happen, or a lack of buyers at a reasonable price? Edited March 7, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 you may be a good one to ask - is it simply ego that has made this not happen, or a lack of buyers at a reasonable price? I do not think that it is lack of buyer . My guess is that they could get $10-$12M a year for naming rights. Houston gets $12M and that is a little older deal (Dallas is like $19M). I would think that some targets would be Geico (decent presence in WNY), Paychex (Rochester based), Delaware North (and it could be tied into the concession revenue as a way for repayment), or Wegman's even. There are plenty of other options I am sure but I am just spitballing a few that may make some sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Ever been to FedEx field in Washington? Giant FedEx, Verizon and Bank of America signs all over the damned thing. Edit: Forgot about AT&T, Comcast and Geico, as well. Edited March 7, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I do not think that it is lack of buyer . My guess is that they could get $10-$12M a year for naming rights. Houston gets $12M and that is a little older deal (Dallas is like $19M). I would think that some targets would be Geico (decent presence in WNY), Paychex (Rochester based), Delaware North (and it could be tied into the concession revenue as a way for repayment), or Wegman's even. There are plenty of other options I am sure but I am just spitballing a few that may make some sense. thats been my impression but one that i always hate to throw out there as i had NOTHING to base it on other than my own common sense guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The cap increases based on revenues that are not shared. When Jets/Giants report revenue from their new stadium from luxury suites, the cap goes up but this money is not split among the owners. edit: Sorry Kirby. missed your explanation The cap isn't going up because the Jet/sGiants are selling more suites. It's going up because all teams will see more money as a result of the new TV deals. The cap increase is proportional the increase in TV revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 ALL revenue, shared or unshared, drives up the salary cap. TV deal equals about 2/3 of that revenue. Remains to be seen what the impact of the new TV deals is in that regard. This inequity necessitated the adoption of a 10% "tax" on the higher, unshared revenue generating teams in order to help defray the impact it has on the lower unshared revenue generating teams. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 You make it so much simpler than me, ha ha. Nice work K-9. KJ, I liked the combined answer of both yours and K-9s ...it was depressing as a Bills fan, but it was informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 ALL revenue, shared or unshared, drives up the salary cap. TV deal equals about 2/3 of that revenue. Remains to be seen what the impact of the new TV deals is in that regard. This inequity necessitated the adoption of a 10% "tax" on the higher, unshared revenue generating teams in order to help defray the impact it has on the lower unshared revenue generating teams. GO BILLS!!! To add to that those teams find anyway that they can to hide that $ in another entity so as to not be added to the cap. I have been through about 5 league audits and have seen that end 1st hand. We used to meet before to figure out where we were going to account for certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 KJ, I liked the combined answer of both yours and K-9s ...it was depressing as a Bills fan, but it was informative. Glad that you found it helpful and wish their was a rosier picture to be painted. Fortunately I have great confidence in the people making these decisions for the Bills. They are really bright business people. As for k-9 he is one of the best posters on TBD IMO. He is knowledgeable, reasonable and rationale. When he has something to say it is usually well thought out, articulate and with sound reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I do not think that it is lack of buyer . My guess is that they could get $10-$12M a year for naming rights. Houston gets $12M and that is a little older deal. I'm not sure Houston is a good comparison. They're the 4th largest city in the US and the 10th largest TV market. My guess is they'd get a significantly larger deal than the Bills would. That being said I'm in full agreement, sell the naming rights for whatever they can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure Houston is a good comparison. They're the 4th largest city in the US and the 10th largest TV market. My guess is they'd get a significantly larger deal than the Bills would. That being said I'm in full agreement, sell the naming rights for whatever they can get. I think that Arizona is one of the smallest at about $9M. I am assuming that prices are going up with the increased TV exposure. You are probably right though maybe closer to $10M (maybe even $8M). Edited March 7, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Glad that you found it helpful and wish their was a rosier picture to be painted. Fortunately I have great confidence in the people making these decisions for the Bills. They are really bright business people. As for k-9 he is one of the best posters on TBD IMO. He is knowledgeable, reasonable and rationale. When he has something to say it is usually well thought out, articulate and with sound reasoning. Well that's highly appreciated. Far from consensus, but appreciated none the less. Usually being the operative word. I can be as rash, reckless, and offensive as the next guy... when I'm not being entirely full of crap. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 There is a conversation in the Byrd thread 20 or so pages in with k-9 & I that goes into a little more detail but I will try to briefly explain. The non shared revenues are driving the cap higher and higher but while someone like SF with their new stadium may be getting $50M a year for suite rev (for example) Buffalo makes $7M. The cap is determined as a % of the sum. While the SF, NY, Dallas', etc... are raising these large numbers that drive the cap not everyone is seeing an equal share. You are starting to see it with these large jumps in the cap. There will come a point where the cap is driven past the revenues that these small market teams with older stadiums can compete with. This in short is why Mr. Wilson voted against that CBA. This also is the major reason that the Toronto series existed (to find a creative way to offset the revenue gaps). Make sense? Agree -- the non-shared revenue that counts to the cap will continue to kill the lower revenue teams like the Bills. Ralph was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 K9 and Kirby. Everything you say MAY be true. But again, it's all speculation at this point. I do to know what kind of business your in, but I'm doubting you work for the county or the Bills to know enough about the logistics of the future of the team in Buffalo. Therefore, your opinions and arguments are just the same as anyone else's. Not trying to be a dick here. Just saying. What you THINK you know, isn't any better than anyone else's opinion. What of Terry Pegula Buys the team? Or Tom Galisano. And they couldn't care less about making money on the team that they just want to help out the city of Buffalo. Or maybe there's an owner out there that is just a fan of the Bills and/or the city of Buffalo and doesn't care about the bottom line they are just happy with owning the team and don't care if they lose money doing it. All things that are not easily answered by some random people on a message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 K9 and Kirby. Everything you say MAY be true. But again, it's all speculation at this point. I do to know what kind of business your in, but I'm doubting you work for the county or the Bills to know enough about the logistics of the future of the team in Buffalo. Therefore, your opinions and arguments are just the same as anyone else's. Not trying to be a dick here. Just saying. What you THINK you know, isn't any better than anyone else's opinion. What of Terry Pegula Buys the team? Or Tom Galisano. And they couldn't care less about making money on the team that they just want to help out the city of Buffalo. Or maybe there's an owner out there that is just a fan of the Bills and/or the city of Buffalo and doesn't care about the bottom line they are just happy with owning the team and don't care if they lose money doing it. All things that are not easily answered by some random people on a message board. Read the CBA, it's all in there as far as revenue sharing. We aren't making this stuff up. Regarding what each team receives as a share of TV revenue, you'll see it's less than what's needed to cover ALL player costs, not just salary. Not to mention the other expenses associated with operating an NFL franchise. As for how much more of a percentage of revenue the Bills spend on player costs, go to the Forbes' valuation summaries. It's plain as day. So while there's often wild speculation and opinions here and in other forums, as far as this particular aspect of the conversation goes, it's all verifiable with a little research. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Read the CBA, it's all in there as far as revenue sharing. We aren't making this stuff up. Regarding what each team receives as a share of TV revenue, you'll see it's less than what's needed to cover ALL player costs, not just salary. Not to mention the other expenses associated with operating an NFL franchise. As for how much more of a percentage of revenue the Bills spend on player costs, go to the Forbes' valuation summaries. It's plain as day. So while there's often wild speculation and opinions here and in other forums, as far as this particular aspect of the conversation goes, it's all verifiable with a little research. GO BILLS!!! K9 and Kirby are right. The revenue sharing model only includes certain items. There are provisions to provide small market teams extra funds if the other owners deem they have exhausted their respective markets and are maximizing their revenue generation. I don't know the specifics. However, it is quite possible as the cap increases that the Bills could lose money as a team if they spend to the cap because of this issue. At a minimum, they are significantly less profitable, especially in a small, economically depressed market. In my opinion, where Brandon gets inappropriate praise is the way he has supposedly "regionalized" the team. While, the Bills are regional, they would have gotten there naturally as the NFL became more popular. Where Brandon has failed is to think bigger and more creatively on other ways to market the team. Look no further than Green Bay for a model of what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 K9 and Kirby are right. The revenue sharing model only includes certain items. There are provisions to provide small market teams extra funds if the other owners deem they have exhausted their respective markets and are maximizing their revenue generation. I don't know the specifics. However, it is quite possible as the cap increases that the Bills could lose money as a team if they spend to the cap because of this issue. At a minimum, they are significantly less profitable, especially in a small, economically depressed market. In my opinion, where Brandon gets inappropriate praise is the way he has supposedly "regionalized" the team. While, the Bills are regional, they would have gotten there naturally as the NFL became more popular. Where Brandon has failed is to think bigger and more creatively on other ways to market the team. Look no further than Green Bay for a model of what to do. cant argue one bit about what you say about Russ. The job is already done for him by the NFL. And I don't disagree with the revenue coming from additional outlets. But in the end, the BILLIONS that the teams earn from the tv deal is all that's needed to run an NFL team. The system is set up that way. The additional ticket sales and merchandise sales is just frosting on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 cant argue one bit about what you say about Russ. The job is already done for him by the NFL. And I don't disagree with the revenue coming from additional outlets. But in the end, the BILLIONS that the teams earn from the tv deal is all that's needed to run an NFL team. The system is set up that way. The additional ticket sales and merchandise sales is just frosting on the cake. I don't necessarily agree with all of this. The Bills marketing territory used o stop at the Canadian border and then was turned over to NFL Canada. Russ and the Bills fought to keep that as Bills money as it fell within the 75 mile radius and should not be split evenly. The Bills have ultimately been able to get into that market in a way that they could not previously. As far as frosting on the cake I am not sure what you mean. Should someone be happy profiting $100M when they could just as easily profit $200M? There is not 1 business person that I have ever encountered that thinks that way. The bottom line is that the Bills need to get creative in how they can continue to generate non shared revenue. They have been in the top 15 or so in local sponsorship which is incredible considering that there are no Fortune 500 companies. The people running the Bills on the business side are very strong and have strong reputations throughout the sports world despite what a lot of fans think. I have full confidence that they will continue to maximize the revenue that the market will allot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't necessarily agree with all of this. The Bills marketing territory used o stop at the Canadian border and then was turned over to NFL Canada. Russ and the Bills fought to keep that as Bills money as it fell within the 75 mile radius and should not be split evenly. The Bills have ultimately been able to get into that market in a way that they could not previously. As far as frosting on the cake I am not sure what you mean. Should someone be happy profiting $100M when they could just as easily profit $200M? There is not 1 business person that I have ever encountered that thinks that way. The bottom line is that the Bills need to get creative in how they can continue to generate non shared revenue. They have been in the top 15 or so in local sponsorship which is incredible considering that there are no Fortune 500 companies. The people running the Bills on the business side are very strong and have strong reputations throughout the sports world despite what a lot of fans think. I have full confidence that they will continue to maximize the revenue that the market will allot. A couple quick comments --- Brandon is no marketing genius. To me, he's done the obvious, which is to expand the market for the team into Roch, Syr and Canada. He's fallen way short at doing what GB has done and that's what the team needs to do. On the profitability, agree 100%. A new owner can make more elsewhere. The question is whether an owner, who is inclined to keep the team in Buffalo, can be profitable. I think with the right stadium (a NEW ONE) and more creative marketing, it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts