Gugny Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 its 2 teams in the same market. Thats fine. If the same sports exists in both markets, it cant happen. Its an NFL rule. The reason Jacobs cant buy the Bills is because he owns the Bruins, who are in the Patriots' market. It is anti-trust issue, and is to eliminate potential conflicts of interest http://www.theofficialreview.com/nfl-cross-ownership-rules/ " The League codified this approach in an amendment to its Constitution and Bylaws that allows cross-ownership in another major league sports team in two narrow circumstances: (1) if the two franchises are in the same city, or (2) if the other league’s franchise is in a neutral market" It can't be an anti-trust issue, because it's not the same industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I agree. To my complete non-expert eyes, that's the biggest and maybe most simple change about our team this year. They seem to convert way more third downs. No longer does a failed second down feel like an automatic punt. I posted it in another thread, but over the past three weeks they're converting at a 48% clip, which would be top 5 in the league. Your eyes aren't deceiving you. But hey, Tyrod isn't throwing for 300 yards so they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 In the Jets game, the defense was on the field first and could not get off for 15 plays (8:19 min). The offense then came out and promptly (too fast, Terry??) scored a TD. Then the D came back on and could not get off for 9 plays and another 5 plus minutes (and another Jets score). So, to recap, the Bills defense could not get off the field in the first Q, because they could not prevent a million first downs. In fact, in the fist Q of that game, the D kept the offense of the field in the 1st Q. Terry doesn't sound too bright when he says (or parrots) things like this. Is it impossible that Terry did deliver an ultimatum and subsequently (for obvious reasons) denied it? Why would that be so far fetched? Are you saying that the Bills were not at the bottom or near bottom of the three and out stat last year? http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/three-and-out-percentage/2015/ 31 out of 32 teams in 2015 (26.88%) This year: Ravens Game Nine Drives: 3 plays (5 out of 9) 5 plays (1 out of 9) 6 plays (1 out of 9) 11 plays (1 out of 9) 12 plays (1 out of 9) Source: Page 4 of NFL Gamebook http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56903/BAL_Gamebook.pdf Jets game 10 drives: 1 play (1 out of 10)(end of game) 3 plays (4 out of 10)(1 of those ended in a TD)(3 out of 10 ended in a punt) 4 plays (1 out of 10) 5 plays (1 out of 10) 6 plays (1 out of 10) 10 plays (1 out of 10) 13 plays (1 out of 10) Source: page 5 of NFL Gamebook http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56917/BUF_Gamebook.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 He owns Deer Run and bought Shania Twain's property in the Adirondacks The properties are near Saint Regis Falls It's Deer Valley Trails. Nice place. The walls are plastered with Bills and Sabers stuff. Our camp is half to three quarters of an hour away and the wife and I go a couple times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 It can't be an anti-trust issue, because it's not the same industry. From the article I posted "The NFL’s current cross-ownership rules arguably creates efficiencies that should save it from antitrust scrutiny. Cross-ownership creates special problems in leagues like the NFL where much of the revenue is shared among team owners. Conflicts of interest could arise over negotiations for national broadcast rights if owners had teams in different leagues in multiple cities. In this setting, the ban is necessary to block owners from freeriding on the investments of their fellow owners, for example, by using a league’s confidential information and business methods to assist a league in another professional sport.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 From the article I posted "The NFL’s current cross-ownership rules arguably creates efficiencies that should save it from antitrust scrutiny. Cross-ownership creates special problems in leagues like the NFL where much of the revenue is shared among team owners. Conflicts of interest could arise over negotiations for national broadcast rights if owners had teams in different leagues in multiple cities. In this setting, the ban is necessary to block owners from freeriding on the investments of their fellow owners, for example, by using a league’s confidential information and business methods to assist a league in another professional sport.." Right. It has nothing to do with any other sport outside of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Uh. Sorry folks. Pegula doesn't own a lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Uh. Sorry folks. Pegula doesn't own a lake. Despite your new age vegan BS politics, you can indeed own property in the U.S., Chairman Boyst. Right. It has nothing to do with any other sport outside of football. Correct. You cannot own two sports franchises in the same city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Despite your new age vegan BS politics, you can indeed own property in the U.S., Chairman Boyst. Correct. You cannot own two sports franchises in the same city. I know the exemption had to do with the population and demographics of Buffalo vs. other big cities. I recall news stories about how he was trying to decide if he would sell the Sabres at the time and Jacobs was a suitor for buying the Sabres (once again, because his ownership of the Bruins fell outside the population and demographics exemption) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) In the Jets game, the defense was on the field first and could not get off for 15 plays (8:19 min). The offense then came out and promptly (too fast, Terry??) scored a TD. Then the D came back on and could not get off for 9 plays and another 5 plus minutes (and another Jets score). So, to recap, the Bills defense could not get off the field in the first Q, because they could not prevent a million first downs. In fact, in the fist Q of that game, the D kept the offense of the field in the 1st Q. Terry doesn't sound too bright when he says (or parrots) things like this. Is it impossible that Terry did deliver an ultimatum and subsequently (for obvious reasons) denied it? Why would that be so far fetched? The Bills defense held them to a field goal that first drive taking 8:19 The Bills offense scored in 1:25 seconds which is fine. No one is complaining. The Bills defense then held the Jets to another field goal on a 5:16 drive The Bills offense went 3 and out in 1:38 seconds The Bills defense allowed a touch down in a 2:15 minute drive The Bills offense punted on a 3:20 drive The Bills defense allowed a touch down in a 3:54 drive The Bills offense drove down and got a field goal before the half in 3:48 2nd Half The Bills offense scored a TD in 0:51 seconds. The Bills defense scores a fumble recovery for a TD that took 2:54 The Bills defense forces a punt that took 1:42 The Bills offense goes 3 and out in 0:54 seconds. The Bills defense allows a Jets TD drive that took 6:27 The Bills offense throws a pick in 2:20 seconds The Bills defense holds the Jets to a FG that took 4:12 The Bills offense turns the ball over on downs in 3:37 seconds The Bills defense allows a Jets TD Drive that went 3:01 The Bills offense drives the ball down and scores a TD in 2:45 seconds The Bills offense didn't have a sustained drive all game. To say that doesn't affect the defense doesn't sound too bright imo. Edited October 21, 2016 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I know the exemption had to do with the population and demographics of Buffalo vs. other big cities. I recall news stories about how he was trying to decide if he would sell the Sabres at the time and Jacobs was a suitor for buying the Sabres (once again, because his ownership of the Bruins fell outside the population and demographics exemption) They effectively skirted NFL AND NHL bylaws by signing the paperwork in Kim's name but we all know who is running the show. She's the Manchurian candidate, which is actually pretty insensitive considering she's Korean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 This thread is hilarious. Other than Fergy, I can't even tell who thinks this discussion on dual ownership is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 This thread is hilarious. Other than Fergy, I can't even tell who thinks this discussion on dual ownership is real. I was going to say the same thing. I can't tell if this broke out into a real disagreement about the rule from the actual joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Is it impossible that Terry did deliver an ultimatum and subsequently (for obvious reasons) denied it? Why would that be so far fetched? Not as possible as you are a P*ts troll trying to stir things up - media has been caught multiple times with "inside sources" which were other media people making things up. The Bills offense didn't have a sustained drive all game. To say that doesn't affect the defense doesn't sound too bright imo. He is just a P*ts Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Despite your new age vegan BS politics, you can indeed own property in the U.S., Chairman Boyst. Correct. You cannot own two sports franchises in the same city. can't own navigatable waters pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 SO BASICALLY ,,"HE JUST CALLED THE" BUFFALO NEWS ," articles total B.S, ......gee what a surprise!!!!!!!!!!! maybe sully and the other"" liars "" there will finally get LORAX'ED BILLieve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 He owns a lake? Haha I have some ponds near the Adirondacks and I coached Little League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 It's Deer Valley Trails. Nice place. The walls are plastered with Bills and Sabers stuff. Our camp is half to three quarters of an hour away and the wife and I go a couple times a year. I live about 15 miles from there and yeah, nice place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 can't own navigatable waters pal Perhaps, but if you have exclusive access by owning all the property around the lake/pond (with no navigable waters going to it) you effectively own it as this one is. Big Wolf is a Hidden, Totally Secluded, Pristine Lake which has no public access. P.S. I know the caretaker for this association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 The Czar was ousted in 1917 and won't be back. FWIW, I've always preferred the "Tsar" spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts