Article about Bills sale from a non-fan

[Beerball]

Beerball, it's Goodell's legacy he specifically links to the Bills. That's why I disagreed with what he said, not just focusing on that.

 

"Commissioner Roger Goodell, the fate of the Buffalo Bills will determine your legacy.

Do you want to be remembered as a leader?

Or as a pimp?"

 

 

In the beginning of the article, he just calls the league a money sucking pimp.

 

Neither of us care about the fate of the Rams or St. Louis. But it seemed strange this guy would go on about a team that isn't going anywhere for a while, and rail on the NFL despite that fact, while ignoring the more likely move of the Rams.

 

That's why I thought his article was misdirected and seemed a gratuitous shot. It's all cliches. I'm confident the Bills are staying put--and I'm the pessimist here....

We are going to find out whether the league has any soul at all. If the Bills are allowed to leave Buffalo, then the NFL is nothing more than a money-sucking pimp and us fans are nothing more in their eyes than...

[FLFan]

I don't think that he mentions Goodell until the very end of the article. Everywhere else he's talking about "the league" and when he brings up the Kings he talks about the owners. I think you're too quick to dismiss what the guy had to say which is...the league controls who, what, when and where.

Agreed - very good points. Also, Goodell does have a big say. How he manages his influence in the process - with the owners, prospective owner(s), and the politicians will be a big factor.

[What a Tuel]

I truly fear the NFL has lost so much touch they wouldnt bat an eye relocating the Bills in the name of $. There are some people who get "bothered" somehow by the NFL losing money' date=' you see comments on ESPN and such "just move them to LA". For the most part, real fans should hate the idea and the more press this gets, the more "scared" off the NFL might get. They really do not want any self-inflicted bad press/PR. I do fear they may justify a move to Toronto by saying it is "only an hour away". People elsewhere in the country may be fooled into thinking that is nothing and we still have our team. [/quote']

 

 

 

I was nervous about Toronto too. I could very well see them making that justification until you think about it for a few minutes. A relocation to Toronto (like if Bon Jovi bought the Bills) would likely mean a complete rebranding of the team. I don't think they could pretend "it was only moving an hour away"

 

That isn't to say Toronto isn't a possibility, it is just to say that I don't think they would be able to point and tell us its the same team just an hour away. JMHO

Edited April 17, 2014 by What a Tuel

[Storm Front]

A move will all come down to the owners and how much more money they want to make. I could see a sharp, conniving guy like Robert Kraft approve a move with the bat of an eye.

[dollars 2 donuts]

He nailed it. I remember a few years back when Cleveland was brought back, my father was talking about his faith in the league. That's when he started to really worry about the future of the Bills.

 

I was going to school in Ohio when the news broke that the Browns were leaving Cleveland.

 

It was bad, bad, bad. It was surreal and I truly felt horrible for the fans of the Browns, whom have grown on me over the years.

 

No fan should have to go through that.

[dollars 2 donuts]

I live in Ft. Myers for the winter. I can tell you that David Moulton is a very respected writer. It's good to see media people from other than Bflo start griping about NFL greed etc.. It can't hurt.

 

Not it cannot, and I for one (but hopefully not just one) hope for a flood of similar articles, even if they are insanely redundant.

[Big Turk]

He is right, places like Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, etc are the soul of the NFL...

 

It's a black eye on the NFL to have places like that with no teams, as you can tell by even when they allowed Cleveland to be relocated, they quickly replaced them...

 

As much as we feel like we need the NFL, they might not realize it, but they need us just as much...our loyalty and love for the team runs deep in these places in a way other places cannot even comprehend.

 

 

[metzelaars_lives]

What a fantastic article. There needs to be more of this same sentiment in support of the Bills around the country. I haven't even read anything along these lines in the Buffalo News as of yet- it's just people pointing out facts, numbers and percentages and, in the case of Alan Pergament's column, completely unbased and blind pessimism. And just like other posters have said, I would be completely turned off if any team with the tradition of the Bills were to leave just because the owner, who is already a billionaire, wanted to become a little bit more of a billionaire at the cost of a great, supportive fan base losing its team. It should literally be criminal.

[Big Turk]

 

 

I was going to school in Ohio when the news broke that the Browns were leaving Cleveland.

 

It was bad, bad, bad. It was surreal and I truly felt horrible for the fans of the Browns, whom have grown on me over the years.

 

No fan should have to go through that.

 

I'm sure there were a lot of grown men crying that day, just as there will be if it ever comes to that here, God forbid...

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I'm sure there were a lot of grown men crying that day, just as there will be if it ever comes to that here, God forbid...

 

This

 

 

CBF

[Big Turk]

 

Agreed - very good points. Also, Goodell does have a big say. How he manages his influence in the process - with the owners, prospective owner(s), and the politicians will be a big factor.

 

Schumer is not someone the owners or the NFL wants to be on the bad side of. He could cost them far more money individually and collectively by spearheading changes in laws that are extremely favorable to them than any relocation could gain them. Schumer has a lot of pull and is well respected. Not exactly a guy the NFL wants to play this game with.

Edited April 17, 2014 by matter2003

[Campy]

What a fantastic article. There needs to be more of this same sentiment in support of the Bills around the country. I haven't even read anything along these lines in the Buffalo News as of yet- it's just people pointing out facts, numbers and percentages and, in the case of Alan Pergament's column, completely unbased and blind pessimism. And just like other posters have said, I would be completely turned off if any team with the tradition of the Bills were to leave just because the owner, who is already a billionaire, wanted to become a little bit more of a billionaire at the cost of a great, supportive fan base losing its team. It should literally be criminal.

 

I agree with the gist of your post, but it almost sounds like you aren't familiar with the fates of the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers, and original Cleveland Browns. It's exactly the reason why I still despise the Titans, Ravens, and Indianapolis.

 

Schumer is not someone the owners or the NFL wants to be on the bad side of. He could cost them far more money individually and collectively by spearheading changes in laws that are extremely favorable to them than any relocation could gain them. Schumer has a lot of pull and is well respected. Not exactly a guy the NFL wants to play this game with.

 

I think the owners would be more concerned with his ability to manipulate anti-trust laws. But either way, I'm with you and am glad he's on our side on this.

[metzelaars_lives]

I agree with the gist of your post, but it almost sounds like you aren't familiar with the fates of the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers, and original Cleveland Browns. It's exactly the reason why I still despise the Titans, Ravens, and Indianapolis.

 

 

 

I think the owners would be more concerned with his ability to manipulate anti-trust laws. But either way, I'm with you and am glad he's on our side on this.

I'm very familiar with all three situations. You're talking to metzelaars here. As I am with the Chicago Cardinals moving to St. Louis and then Phoenix, as well as the Dallas Texans moving to Kansas City and becoming the Chiefs, as well as the Rams leaving LA and the Raiders going Oakland -> LA -> Oakland, as well as the LA Chargers moving to San Diego, et al. There are varying degrees of tragedy with each situation with Baltimore and Cleveland being 1 and 1a. Anyone who's seen Diner knows how much the Colts meant to Baltimore. The Oilers were not being supported in Houston anymore. And I think the writer makes a point to say as long as the city is still supporting its team then it should not be permitted. As much as it sucks that there is a Carolina Hurricanes and not a Hartford Whalers from a uniform perspective, the Whalers were no longer viable in Hartford. Same with the Montreal Expos and same with the Buffalo Braves. But what makes this whole situation so irritating is that the Bills ARE perfectly viable in Buffalo right now.

Edited April 17, 2014 by metzelaars_lives

[CodeMonkey]

Schumer is not someone the owners or the NFL wants to be on the bad side of. He could cost them far more money individually and collectively by spearheading changes in laws that are extremely favorable to them than any relocation could gain them. Schumer has a lot of pull and is well respected. Not exactly a guy the NFL wants to play this game with.

I think the owners would be more concerned with his ability to manipulate anti-trust laws. But either way, I'm with you and am glad he's on our side on this.

I suspect the collective wealth and contacts the 32 owners (counting the to-be-determined Bills owner) have, they are not very worried about Senator Chuck

Edited April 17, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[Mr. WEO]

Schumer is not someone the owners or the NFL wants to be on the bad side of. He could cost them far more money individually and collectively by spearheading changes in laws that are extremely favorable to them than any relocation could gain them. Schumer has a lot of pull and is well respected. Not exactly a guy the NFL wants to play this game with.

I agree with the gist of your post, but it almost sounds like you aren't familiar with the fates of the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers, and original Cleveland Browns. It's exactly the reason why I still despise the Titans, Ravens, and Indianapolis.

 

 

 

I think the owners would be more concerned with his ability to manipulate anti-trust laws. But either way, I'm with you and am glad he's on our side on this.

 

This is repeated every now and then here. The NFL's "antitrust" status is what keeps the league viable as it is. No one, especially a Senator from the media capital of the world, would ever mess with that.

 

And why, as a Bills fan, would you want that to change? The anti-trust exemption is what has allowed the league to set TV contract prices at once for all 32 teams. This has led to the revenue sharing model that supports all teams--essentially guaranteeing them their player costs each year. Think of what would happen without that exemption. The most popular teams would negotiate their own massive TV deals and the teams with limited national following would be scraping for local/regional network affiliate or cable deals for a tiny fraction of what they are coat-tailing on today's TV contracts for. Also likely gone would be revenue sharing--why would Jerry Jones continue to share his massive revenue if he didn't have to?--he would certainly sue the league arguing that, without the exemption, the NFL is an illegal monopoly and cannot take his money and give it to someone else.

 

Agai, why would any Bills fan want this??

[Campy]

I'm very familiar <snip>

 

As much as it sucks that there is a Carolina Hurricanes and not a Hartford Whalers from a uniform perspective, the Whalers were no longer viable in Hartford. <snip>

 

I figured you were - I think we're close to the same age. The words you chose just struck me as peculiar, that's all. And was the case with your original post, I agree with everything you said in this one - with one small exception.

 

Karmonos played hardball and as he approached a deal with the governor over a new arena and demanded he be reimbursed for "lost revenue" over the course of the 3 seasons the arena was to be built. The had city rallied and did their part by buying season tickets but the owner screwed them after the governor rightly balked. I know it's not relevant to the general thread topic, but I'm not sure I'd lump the Whalers in with the other unsustainable teams.

 

Your overall point about the Bills being viable was well made and I agree 100%

[Big Turk]

 

 

 

This is repeated every now and then here. The NFL's "antitrust" status is what keeps the league viable as it is. No one, especially a Senator from the media capital of the world, would ever mess with that.

 

And why, as a Bills fan, would you want that to change? The anti-trust exemption is what has allowed the league to set TV contract prices at once for all 32 teams. This has led to the revenue sharing model that supports all teams--essentially guaranteeing them their player costs each year. Think of what would happen without that exemption. The most popular teams would negotiate their own massive TV deals and the teams with limited national following would be scraping for local/regional network affiliate or cable deals for a tiny fraction of what they are coat-tailing on today's TV contracts for. Also likely gone would be revenue sharing--why would Jerry Jones continue to share his massive revenue if he didn't have to?--he would certainly sue the league arguing that, without the exemption, the NFL is an illegal monopoly and cannot take his money and give it to someone else.

 

Agai, why would any Bills fan want this??

 

The threat of it would likely be enough to get them backed down, especially if he had other people in his corner on it...

 

 

 

I suspect the collective wealth and contacts the 32 owners (counting the to-be-determined Bills owner) have, they are not very worried about Senator Chuck

 

Those other owners and contacts don't have the threat of withholding their and their constituents votes on other, more pressing issues to the states of the other Senators. What would they be more worried about, the NFL owners being upset, or potentially losing millions of dollars in funding for their states with a retaliatory vote by Schumer against those who "screwed" him? Don't think for a minute that stuff and more doesn't happen there. Schumer is very well connected and wields considerable clout among his peers as Senator of one of the larger states.

 

Those owners aren't paying them once they get voted out of office by their constituents...

 

The power lies in the ability to withhold vital votes they need for other projects/funding that potentially get them voted out of office. Politics deals with a whole lot more than single issues by themselves

Edited April 17, 2014 by matter2003

[Campy]

This is repeated every now and then here. The NFL's "antitrust" status is what keeps the league viable as it is.

<snip>

Agai, why would any Bills fan want this??

 

Anti-trust is a major component of the league's success. Without anti-trust, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 teams would do well for a couple of years, but the rest of the teams would have absolutely no chance of being profitable - much less competitive - and would have to either fold or relocate so frequently fans wouldn't be able to keep up. This would certainly bring about the collapse of the league.

 

I mean, there isa reason the NFL fought so hard for it - they need it to maintain long term sustainability. If this card is played, Schumer is asking the NFL if they are prepared to crash and burn 31 teams over the fate of the 32nd. Obviously, this card shouldn't/wouldn't be played unless the Bills were in imminent danger of being moved and either the Bills owner or the other 31 other owners needed a little arm-twisting.

 

And it would be something of a nuclear solution, you're right there. We'll step back and go with a Congressionally authorized agency taking another longer, closer look at blackouts. That has been on the FCC's radar for years, and it's something the NFL feels strongly about, so maybe that would provide enough pressure should it come to that...

Edited April 17, 2014 by Campy

[Big Turk]

 

 

Anti-trust issue is a major component of the league's success. Without anti-trust, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 teams would do well for a couple of years, but the rest of the teams would have absolutely no chance of being profitable - much less competitive - and would have to either fold or relocate so frequently fans wouldn't be able to keep up. This would certainly bring about the collapse of the league.

 

I mean, there is a reason the NFL fought so hard for it - they need it to maintain long term sustainability. If this card is played, Schumer is asking the NFL if they are prepared to crash and burn 31 teams over the fate of the 32nd. Obviously, this card shouldn't/wouldn't be played unless the Bills were in imminent danger of being moved and either the Bills owner or the other 31 other owners needed a little arm-twisting.

 

And it would be something of a nuclear solution, you're right there. We'll step back and go with a Congressionally authorized agency taking another longer, closer look at blackouts. That has been on the FCC's radar for years, and it's something the NFL feels strongly about, so maybe that would provide enough pressure should it come to that...

 

Or turn into baseball where once every 30 years the stars align and teams like Pittsburgh and KC draft and trade well over a 4 or 5 year period to have a playoff team before having to dismantle it once their star players contracts come up...

[CodeMonkey]

The threat of it would likely be enough to get them backed down, especially if he had other people in his corner on it...

 

 

 

Those other owners and contacts don't have the threat of withholding their and their constituents votes on other, more pressing issues to the states of the other Senators. What would they be more worried about, the NFL owners being upset, or potentially losing millions of dollars in funding for their states with a retaliatory vote by Schumer against those who "screwed" him? Don't think for a minute that stuff and more doesn't happen there. Schumer is very well connected and wields considerable clout among his peers as Senator of one of the larger states.

 

Those owners aren't paying them once they get voted out of office by their constituents...

 

The power lies in the ability to withhold vital votes they need for other projects/funding that potentially get them voted out of office. Politics deals with a whole lot more than single issues by themselves

And I'm saying that 32 Billionaires in different industries in different states have their own hooks into the state and federal governments to the point that they could, through their lobbies and/or directly, tell Senator Chuck to sit down and shut up and he would do it. Or do you think the power of 1 Senator is greater in the national government than 32 Billionaires?

 

At the end of the day Chuck wants to keep his job. Putting up a public fight for Bills fans is good politics for him. Until he pisses off 32 people who collectively could alter his job status.

Edited April 17, 2014 by CodeMonkey