jahbonas Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Orchard Park is in a "snow belt"? The US government will do nothing if the NFL wants to put a team out of the US. To suggest they would is laughable. So is the needless repeating of the possibility of altering the anti-trust status of the NFL. Also, Tim Graham's article said nothing about any politician challenging the anti-trust status of the league. Common sense should inform everyone that if every NFL team was allowed to make it's own uniform/TV/etc deals there would be no profit sharing and a team like Buffalo would would be gone in a flash. Why posters keep repeating that Schumer or Cuomo would ever try to make this happen? This nonsense has to stop. It's magical thinking. Do you even read the comments before you post?? There are MULTIPLE threats against the NFL - antitrust is ONE - but there is also the tax exempt status that can be taken away by politicians, Polian indicates this is a huge threat. Is your argument that politicians have no influence on the NFL? or is it so narrow that its the anti trust law is a threat that they will never use? If so - so what?? the pols then can threaten with the tax exempt law = or don't you wish to address this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) . . . The NFL has a "mob" mentality...they make a ton of money and have some very questionable breaks given to them by Congress. All they want to do is keep making money and be left alone, upsetting as few people in the process as possible who could put a big kink in the money hose, so to speak. Let's assume that you're right about the #1 concern being a kink in the money hose. Which is a bigger threat to the 31 other owners - - (1) an antitrust suit by a team owner who wanted to relocate but was blocked from doing so by a vote of the other owners, or (2) future legislative action by a divided, do-nothing Congress that is not likely to have both the Senate and the House controlled by the Democrats (because the politicians you credit with super-powers happen to be Democrats) in the foreseeable future? Read the entire 1995 article at this link for some historical context before you answer (re former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's testimony to Congress on antitrust issues in 1995): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-11-30/news/1995334142_1_antitrust-laws-antitrust-case-tagliabue Ever since the NFL lost the only major court fight so far over a franchise move a decade ago, costing the league $50 million in damages, owners have dreaded the possibility of another such fight. Mr. Tagliabue yesterday pursued a congressional solution to allow the NFL to control future franchise moves. * * * * * * It all started in 1982, when Al Davis moved the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles, defeated the NFL in an antitrust case and won $50 million in damages. Since then, the Colts have moved to Indianapolis in 1984, the Cardinals from St. Louis to Phoenix in 1988 and this year the Raiders moved back to Oakland and the Rams moved from Los Angeles to St. Louis. The NFL has been unable to block any of these moves because it fears losing another antitrust case, which requires the loser to pay triple damages. I haven't tried to research whether Congress eventually passed any changes in the antitrust laws to address Tagliabue's concerns, but I am not currently aware of any such legislative changes. Willing to be educated on the topic, though. Edited June 1, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Wow Polian agrees with me about a ROOF on the stadium. Time to make Buffalo Games a place fans, Future FA's want to be at. AND Get the damn December games back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahbonas Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) A roof is a MUST for any new stadium - no financial plan can work when figuring only 10 days of revenue a year, Look at Lucas Oil field for the Colts. The Colts only account for 15% of the revenue generate by that building/convention center/football stadium - thats our model. And if thats the model it must be located near a downtown area to accomodate conventions etccc - indicating either Buffalo or Niagara Falls, Likely the Falls gets the nod mostly because the land acquisition would be easier/cheaper. Lets see where it all goes..... Edited June 1, 2014 by jahbonas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 There are only 200000 people in Niagara County. There are 900000 people in Erie county. Elect politicians that have some balls, Eminent Domain the ****ty abandoned factories on Niagara ave, build a new stadium and the foot of Niagara and build a twin peace bridge. Redevelop whole area, a la DC and Nats park. Problem solved. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Let's assume that you're right about the #1 concern being a kink in the money hose. Which is a bigger threat to the 31 other owners - - (1) an antitrust suit by a team owner who wanted to relocate but was blocked from doing so by a vote of the other owners, or (2) future legislative action by a divided, do-nothing Congress that is not likely to have both the Senate and the House controlled by the Democrats (because the politicians you credit with super-powers happen to be Democrats) in the foreseeable future? Read the entire 1995 article at this link for some historical context before you answer (re former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's testimony to Congress on antitrust issues in 1995): http://articles.balt...-case-tagliabue I haven't tried to research whether Congress eventually passed any changes in the antitrust laws to address Tagliabue's concerns, but I am not currently aware of any such legislative changes. Willing to be educated on the topic, though. 1) They are not going to sell to someone who wants to relocate the team either during or after the lease. Brandon has said his most important responsibility is finding the right owner to keep the team here. The lease, stadium sites/plans, etc are all designed to keep the team here and basically make it so hard for someone who wants to move the team to do so, they won't even bother trying to bid. Anyone who thinks they have gone through all this effort and trouble to make it so hard for the team to be moved to turn around and sell it to someone who wants to move it, is frankly making no sense, 2) The lawsuit from the NFL trying to break a lease in place that forbids the moving of the team, in addition to pissing off powerful politicians in New York who are determined to keep the "only NY team in the NFL" here would be like the Vietnam War for the NFL. Long, bloody, and a pyrrhic victory. They might win, but what would the cost be? 3) There are not enough votes from owners to move a team that is well supported, and embodies the very "soul" of the NFL. Buffalo is everything that is right with the NFL. You don't move teams like that. You move teams like Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, San Diego, Miami, etc that nobody really cares about. Its a lot easier and less messy. They learned a lot from the Cleveland debacle and I don't think anyone who was an owner at the time wants to see a repeat of that. 4) We have some strong allies in our corner...the GB CEO from WNY who is dead set against Buffalo moving and said he will not support anyone trying to move the team as well as Roger Goodell who is from WNY. Cuomo, a likely presidential candidate who is determined to keep the team here at virtually all costs, which will garner him significant good will in the area, and Schumer who is pretty much equally determined. Probably more that we don't know about. 5) A new stadium is going to pretty much be a guarantee which will probably come with similar conditions for not being able to move in return for the concessions the owner is likely to be given in tax breaks, low lease payments, etc... 6) More and more people "in the know" are coming out and basically saying the Bills are not moving, and any owner wanting to purchase the team needs to plan on keeping them here. People keep rehashing the same tired old arguments, but #1 basically takes care of everything by itself. The 4 person trust simply is NOT going to sell it to anyone who intends to move the team, at any time, period. So to answer the question, the point is irrelevant because the owner who they feel comfortable with is not going to be one who is going to try and fight to move the team. Edited June 1, 2014 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Do not build a dome. Nothing ruins football more than a dome. Screw a retractable roof too. Football belongs outdoors, on grass, in weather, all kinds of weather. I belong on my couch with a beer, wings and pizza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Do not build a dome. Nothing ruins football more than a dome. Screw a retractable roof too. Football belongs outdoors, on grass, in weather, all kinds of weather. I belong on my couch with a beer, wings and pizza. So you stay home enjoying outdoor football on TV complaining how domes ruin it while we freeze our asses off for your entertainment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Based on this past winter ALL of WNY was in the snow belt. But I still would like an open air stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Gotta be retractable roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Gotta be retractable roof. Yep. Nothing else will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oman128 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Perhaps someone could go to the library and find some old articles and post them about the discussions of where to put the stadium, and how it ended up in O.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) 1) They are not going to sell to someone who wants to relocate the team either during or after the lease. Brandon has said his most important responsibility is finding the right owner to keep the team here. The lease, stadium sites/plans, etc are all designed to keep the team here and basically make it so hard for someone who wants to move the team to do so, they won't even bother trying to bid. Anyone who thinks they have gone through all this effort and trouble to make it so hard for the team to be moved to turn around and sell it to someone who wants to move it, is frankly making no sense, 2) The lawsuit from the NFL trying to break a lease in place that forbids the moving of the team, in addition to pissing off powerful politicians in New York who are determined to keep the "only NY team in the NFL" here would be like the Vietnam War for the NFL. Long, bloody, and a pyrrhic victory. They might win, but what would the cost be? People keep rehashing the same tired old arguments, but #1 basically takes care of everything by itself. The 4 person trust simply is NOT going to sell it to anyone who intends to move the team, at any time, period. So to answer the question, the point is irrelevant because the owner who they feel comfortable with is not going to be one who is going to try and fight to move the team. Actually, number 1 is probably your weakest point. You have no idea what the people who control the trust will do. I would be shocked if they did anything other than sell to the highest bidder. And even if they cared about the relocation issue, they have zero ability to prevent a new owner from moving the team--or selling it to someone else who wants to move it--after the expiration of the current lease. And the new owner would not have to break any lease to move the team in 2019 or later. Edited June 1, 2014 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Let's assume that you're right about the #1 concern being a kink in the money hose. Which is a bigger threat to the 31 other owners - - (1) an antitrust suit by a team owner who wanted to relocate but was blocked from doing so by a vote of the other owners, or (2) future legislative action by a divided, do-nothing Congress that is not likely to have both the Senate and the House controlled by the Democrats (because the politicians you credit with super-powers happen to be Democrats) in the foreseeable future? Read the entire 1995 article at this link for some historical context before you answer (re former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's testimony to Congress on antitrust issues in 1995): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-11-30/news/1995334142_1_antitrust-laws-antitrust-case-tagliabue I haven't tried to research whether Congress eventually passed any changes in the antitrust laws to address Tagliabue's concerns, but I am not currently aware of any such legislative changes. Willing to be educated on the topic, though. Does the "foreseeable future" extend to 2016? Because there's a better-than-even likelihood that the Democrats will retake the Senate (assuming they lose it this year). 2016 isn't far off. Edited June 1, 2014 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Actually, number 1 is probably your weakest point. You have no idea what the people who control the trust will do. I would be shocked if they did anything other than sell to the highest bidder. And even if they cared about the relocation issue, they have zero ability to prevent a new owner from moving the team--or selling it to someone else who wants to move it--after the expiration of the current lease. And the new owner would not have to break any lease to move the team in 2019 or later. Oh they very well may, because the people who are planning on moving the team have probably been told don't even bother sending a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Oh they very well may, because the people who are planning on moving the team have probably been told don't even bother sending a bid. That is highly unlikely, even if such bidders could be identified in advance, which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaise321 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Perhaps someone could go to the library and find some old articles and post them about the discussions of where to put the stadium, and how it ended up in O.P. This is what I've found so far.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19710121&id=eTMsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xMsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7405,3254318 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19710924&id=tK0lAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FfMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3177,1430069 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710118&id=0ptOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uQkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3677,2960010 I'm sure there is more to this, so I'll dig some more and see what I can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 No social media existed when Cleveland moved.... Imagine facebook, twitter, etc. existing in that environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Polian's opinion is interesting because obviously he knows both the NFL and Buffalo. I believe if Poloncarz keeps his mouth shut, he's not doing his job as an elected official. He should advocate for Erie County because the future of the stadium - and the fate of the Bills - are hugely important to his constituency. I just hope his counsel is wise and that his work effectively helps the process. I wouldn't disagree with that, but this is way way way over Erie County's head. You have no idea how wrong you are, that coming from multiple people in the know and behind the scenes per several articles that have been written about it. They are very scared of f***ing with Cuomo and/or Schumer considering Cuomo is likely a presidential candidate and Schumer a very powerful Senator. The NFL has a "mob" mentality...they make a ton of money and have some very questionable breaks given to them by Congress. All they want to do is keep making money and be left alone, upsetting as few people in the process as possible who could put a big kink in the money hose, so to speak. There is ZERO chance they do something that could upset someone like Cuomo and/or Schumer, its just not how they operate. Moving the Bills just isn't worth the potential loss of the golden egg. Again, please. The fact that their business model relies on stealing from taxpayers tells for financing on stadiums, which gives the unethical and immoral politicians the leverage that they have, tells me that this is not so. Until that changes to start, I don't see any contrary argument to my original point. The same point could have been made about LA teams, or the Colts when they moved. The NFL is just as valuable to the politicians as visa versa. Money talks my friend, and some of its biggest statements are behind-closed-doors whispers. So either you believe that you are better informed than Bill Polian or you believe Bill Polian has some incentive to make this up. By the way - Tim Graham's article last week mentioned he had FOUR well placed sources that stated the same thing that the NFL has multiple privileges that can be changed by politicians and the last thing they want to do is open up any can of worms. But hey - you post here and you know more than those 5 sources. Why read and learn when you can simply post away in ignorance? I'm not insisting that the team is going to move, but I'll believe that they're staying when they stay. I'm just not foolish and gullible enough to think that all kinds of deals can't, and won't, be made behind closed doors. I was also in the minority and took a rash for it for not believing that the team would take years to sell. Yet, after all the initial reports talking about how a sale could take years, here we are, with reports now talking about how the team may be sold within a few months. You can't always, in fact you can rarely, believe what you read in the "news." You ask me if I know more than Bill Polian, who strikes me as a pretty straight shooter, but Jerry Jones' comments also seem to counter Polian's. Are you saying that you know more than Jones, who doesn't strike me as a straight shooter and who I can see being as devious as anyone in order to get his desire and corral others to side with him? Come on now, these forums are laden with some of the most gullible people on the planet. This isn't going to have a dam thing to do with anything but how much money the owners and league can make, that's it. They don't give a crap about us fans here in Buffalo. Period. Anyone that thinks that they do is a fool. Even Schumer, all he cares about is himself too, and if posturing as he has will help him, that's the only reason he'll do it. Having said that, I'm struggling immensely to see how this vision of the team staying in Buffalo, one of the league's most underperforming franchises, will happen. Edited June 1, 2014 by TaskersGhost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoto Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Isn't the Buffalo TV market the 9th largest in the league? Didn't they pull some of the highest shares in the NFL even last year, at 6-10? Perhaps i'm wrong, but I seem to remember this being tweeted more than a few times last season. Buffalo is 51 as a TV market that is part of the problem when the talk of small market teams only Green Bay and New Orleans are smaller. http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets Edited June 1, 2014 by Shoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts