PromoTheRobot Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1026849.asp A**hole owners like Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, and Daniel Snyder are determined to create a haves-vs-have-nots NFL, much like Major League Baseball. These f**ks want to destroy the house that Pete Rozelle built. This is NOT good for Buffalo at all! PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1026849.asp A**hole owners like Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, and Daniel Snyder are determined to create a haves-vs-have-nots NFL, much like Major League Baseball. These f**ks want to destroy the house that Pete Rozelle built. This is NOT good for Buffalo at all! PTR 594152[/snapback] They will get it right. I don't think they want another situation where there would be a strike. Hopefully Paul Tagliabue and his staff will make sure that there is a salary cap each and every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Yesterday afternoon they were talking about this on ESPNews, and all of them agreed it was just Tags trying to kick the players union in the butt. They all agreed that a deal would be reached, saying that both sides are just trying to see if they can make the other blink...but when time starts to run out, they'll cram out a new deal for sure. Too much at stake for them not to, right now they are just trying to see who can get the best deal. Nowhere near the NHL or MLB situations of the last few years. Think about it, its not just Buffalo who'd go down if there is no salary cap...the NFL would watch Buffalo, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Baltimore and Tampa Bay just die. There is no way that Tags wants his lasting memory to be the man who killed off those great teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sorry, I couldn't get over the inaccuracy of the 1st statement about the 40th ANNIVERSARY of the SB. Was there a SB one year b4 SB I that I missed? I realize that Roman numerals aren't well suited for arithmatic functions, but best I can figure XL - I = XXXIX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sorry, I couldn't get over the inaccuracy of the 1st statement about the 40th ANNIVERSARY of the SB. Was there a SB one year b4 SB I that I missed?I realize that Roman numerals aren't well suited for arithmatic functions, but best I can figure XL - I = XXXIX. 594186[/snapback] Yes you got it ! I forget which grade but I had to do math in Roman numerals one year in Elementary School. I though it was fun ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sorry, I couldn't get over the inaccuracy of the 1st statement about the 40th ANNIVERSARY of the SB. Was there a SB one year b4 SB I that I missed?I realize that Roman numerals aren't well suited for arithmatic functions, but best I can figure XL - I = XXXIX. 594186[/snapback] That's why nobody uses those freakin Roman Numerals anymore! Too confusing for all the children left behind. Now if we could just kick the metric system out we'd be just fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Umm, didn't the networks pay more than $24M to televise games...? "Upshaw said there wouldn't be a lockout or strike if the union was decertified. Asked if the league owners would use replacement players if there is no deal when the contract expires, Upshaw said the major television networks would have something to say about that. CBS, NBC, FOX and ESPN recently paid $24 million for the rights to televise NFL games." CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Now if we could just kick the metric system out we'd be just fine! 594196[/snapback] BLASPHEMY!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Now if we could just kick the metric system out we'd be just fine! 594196[/snapback] Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1026849.asp A**hole owners like Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, and Daniel Snyder are determined to create a haves-vs-have-nots NFL, much like Major League Baseball. These f**ks want to destroy the house that Pete Rozelle built. This is NOT good for Buffalo at all! PTR 594152[/snapback] Success in a parity driven system is what has made the Redskins and Cowboys what they are, instead of being the Nationals and Rangers. But mystique only goes so far when the NY teams have free market dollars and are winning every year. The only real solution is to have almost complete revenue sharing, otherwise guys like Snyder and JJ will always be looking for that extra little revenue stream to get an edge on the other. That's what they are doing now, and they could easily undermine their enormous house of cards, see their league split up and lose their free pass to violate anti-trust law. Face it, the NFL is better protected by the government than the US postal service, for chrissake. When push comes to shove, these owners know it, they are just angling for that last extra penny from each other, and the players. It'll get done because the NFL has it so good. Bill Gates wishes he had it so easy as Paul Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Now if we could just kick the metric system out we'd be just fine! 594196[/snapback] NO!!!!!!!!!! The metric system is MUCH better than the American/English system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1026849.asp A**hole owners like Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, and Daniel Snyder are determined to create a haves-vs-have-nots NFL, much like Major League Baseball. These f**ks want to destroy the house that Pete Rozelle built. This is NOT good for Buffalo at all! PTR 594152[/snapback] PTR...I agree 100%. I think the Houston owner whose name escapes me is also part of the "new breed" of greedy owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Success in a parity driven system is what has made the Redskins and Cowboys what they are, instead of being the Nationals and Rangers. But mystique only goes so far when the NY teams have free market dollars and are winning every year. The only real solution is to have almost complete revenue sharing, otherwise guys like Snyder and JJ will always be looking for that extra little revenue stream to get an edge on the other. That's what they are doing now, and they could easily undermine their enormous house of cards, see their league split up and lose their free pass to violate anti-trust law. Face it, the NFL is better protected by the government than the US postal service, for chrissake. When push comes to shove, these owners know it, they are just angling for that last extra penny from each other, and the players. It'll get done because the NFL has it so good. Bill Gates wishes he had it so easy as Paul Allen. 594825[/snapback] True, but I also think owners like Jones and Kraft would prefer competing in a two-tiered NFL, where the same 8-10 teams go to the playoffs every year (their teams) and the rest are cannon fodder. Playoffs=extra revenue! PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 A deal will get done and the Bills will benefit greatly from it. I'm not worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Jones and Kraft have said in the past they want a change in the structure because new owners have to pay team purchase and expansion fee debt on their own (in addition to payroll expenses), but then only get to share equal revenues with the free-and-clear Maras, Rooneys and Wilsons. While it's not killing them, and there's plenty of cash to go around, I can see their point -- why shouldn't Ralph Wilson provide some debt load relief to Dan Snyder if Wilson waves the "We're all in this together" flag when it comes time to split the Fox TV check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I understand both sides. You can't fault Bob Kraft for trying to make back his investment. He spent several HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of his own money to build a stadium, and has to give back a decent chunk of his profits to owners in Pittsburgh or Buffalo who paid next to nothing to have their stadiums built. that said, they obviously need to figure out a way to make it so that everyone can survive and compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Jones and Kraft have said in the past they want a change in the structure because new owners have to pay team purchase and expansion fee debt on their own (in addition to payroll expenses), but then only get to share equal revenues with the free-and-clear Maras, Rooneys and Wilsons. While it's not killing them, and there's plenty of cash to go around, I can see their point -- why shouldn't Ralph Wilson provide some debt load relief to Dan Snyder if Wilson waves the "We're all in this together" flag when it comes time to split the Fox TV check? 594874[/snapback] All owners had to pay "team purchase fees" at some point. It's not the old owners fault that the new owners made their money late and came late to the party. And teams worth never goes down. So these owners, new or old, can make 100 million on their investment pretty much any time they want by just putting the team up for sale. And the reason, virtually the ONLY reason, that the league is as stable and popular and ever growing financially as it is is because the old owners in the big markets, like Wellington Mara, chose to take less personal money for the good of the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 All owners had to pay "team purchase fees" at some point. It's not the old owners fault that the new owners made their money late and came late to the party. And teams worth never goes down. So these owners, new or old, can make 100 million on their investment pretty much any time they want by just putting the team up for sale. And the reason, virtually the ONLY reason, that the league is as stable and popular and ever growing financially as it is is because the old owners in the big markets, like Wellington Mara, chose to take less personal money for the good of the whole. 594885[/snapback] Bingo! It's like me buying a house in a hot neighborhood. I may have paid 10 times more than my neighbor who bought his house 20 years ago, but he was smart to buy earlier. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 So these owners, new or old, can make 100 million on their investment pretty much any time they want by just putting the team up for sale. easy for you to say - you didn't spend $300 million of your own money on a stadium for your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 PTR...I agree 100%. I think the Houston owner whose name escapes me is also part of the "new breed" of greedy owners. 594829[/snapback] Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Playoffs=extra revenue! At least in the past, this was not the case & teams actually typically lost money going to the playoffs (& SB). They have the same expenses as a regular season game, presumably only having ticket gate revenue, etc. to offset it (i.e. no extra tv revenue share). TV is where all the owners make the bulk of their $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself. 594900[/snapback] Sorry, Mr Republican. But the same reason why the league gets an anti-trust exemption and claims"there is no business like a sports league" is why you're flat wrong here! Not all cities /owners are the same and the local markets are very different, with the economies of scale to larger thriving cities. But the product you're selling league wide is competition based on a level playing field with each team having an equal chance to win. That is what has made the NFL king of all sports leagues. Each teams fans believe they have a chance at the playoffs at the start of the season, with no team buying up all the best players due to economies of scale. Take that away and leave super nouveu riche owners like Kraft, Allen, Snyder et al to dominate the landscape and you have a league that sucks a la MLB.This league was built on revenue sharing and if they don't like the rules after they paid the price to join the "club", tough darts. Stick to mayonnaise, software, etc that made you rich and forget about fu**ing up sports for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 easy for you to say - you didn't spend $300 million of your own money on a stadium for your team. 594895[/snapback] It's an investment, like putting a pool in your backyard. He doesn't put his 300 million at risk because he can get a profit on his investment any day he wants. He chose to do that because he would make money on it in the short run and the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 "Each teams fans believe they have a chance at the playoffs at the start of the season, with no team buying up all the best players due to economies of scale. " Do you know any Cardinals fans ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 WRT buying a team/expansion fee, it's called initial investment. The NFL isn't obligated to help an owner buy a team to help him join the NFL, and that's primarily why new owners are left alone to find financing, from what I understand. The idea is that you'll make your money after while and again as has been mentioned, you can sell it to make a profit to someone else. As for revenue-sharing and new stadiums, a lot of owners built new and expensive stadiums to attract high-rollers to buy luxury boxes and such, that they'd get to put in their pockets directly without sharing. However if the proposal that the NFLPA wants is that luxury box revenue should count towards the cap, then these owners who spent money on new stadiums deserve a higher portion of the revenue pie, ideally enough to cover their stradium debts. That only seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 It's an investment, like putting a pool in your backyard. He doesn't put his 300 million at risk because he can get a profit on his investment any day he wants. He chose to do that because he would make money on it in the short run and the long run. right, and you can't blame him for trying to recoup his investment. If you owned a pizza place and had to pay rent, while your competitor across town didn't have to pay rent would you want to have to give him a portion of your profits? (yeah, that was a horrible example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 True, but I also think owners like Jones and Kraft would prefer competing in a two-tiered NFL, where the same 8-10 teams go to the playoffs every year (their teams) and the rest are cannon fodder. Playoffs=extra revenue! PTR 594846[/snapback] Hey, they have to know it doesn't get any better than this. Imagine the entire country, and a surprisingly large amount of the world, gathering around their tv's to watch the Mariners and Pirates in the World Series. Not in our lifetime. A united NFL can sell any matchup they want because fans really believe in the product. Hell, the weekend is actually becoming a national shopping holiday that retailers plan for. It's beyond huge, and it's because it means so much to SO MANY people, not just the fans in the respective championship ciities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 right, and you can't blame him for trying to recoup his investment. If you owned a pizza place and had to pay rent, while your competitor across town didn't have to pay rent would you want to have to give him a portion of your profits? (yeah, that was a horrible example) 595022[/snapback] It's actually a good example, for why the Dan Snyders of the world are screwing the NFL. All other sports leagues think of themselves as 30 or so separate pizza places all trying to make the best pizza and make the most money. The NFL, to its credit, thinks of itself as the National Pizza League, one company, with 32 franchise restaurants all trying to make money for the NPL. Snyder and Jones are trying to open their own pizza place with their own recipes and prices and keep the difference under the National Pizza league umbrella because they have the best location for their restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Why does everyone assume we won't be able to compete if there is no salary cap? As I recall, there was no salary cap until '93/'94. Seems Buffalo put together quite a formidable team without a salary cap. I'm sure they can do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Think about it, its not just Buffalo who'd go down if there is no salary cap...the NFL would watch Buffalo, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Baltimore and Tampa Bay just die. There is no way that Tags wants his lasting memory to be the man who killed off those great teams. 594164[/snapback] The problem is owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones probably could care less if some of these teams don't survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one. When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt. Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The problem is owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones probably could care less if some of these teams don't survive. 595092[/snapback] They'd better care -- unlike the pizza-parlor analogy, you kind of need opposing teams if you're going to run a sports league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself. 594900[/snapback] If that is what you call it... Call it what you will. They are effing everybody. Bob Kraft calls it squeezing 4 people into 3 season ticket seats at Sullivan Stadium for Pats games in th eearly '70s. He admitted taking part in this little theft of service in a Forbes article last year. I guess he has always been doing what is best for himeself. Can you actually belive they published a story like that? Now that he is owner, think he allows that to go on at "The Razor?" You wonder why the Sullivan boys went broke in NE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one. When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt. Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables. 595093[/snapback] And the Pats better win and win and win... Think the NFL knows what a fickle fan base they could have there?... Weren't they moving to Hartford? Could this explain the "blowfest" over the Pats? Saddled with debt and Smith-Barney re-working Kraft's debt on the place EVERY 30 DAYS can only go so far. Put RW into this mess of owners and he doesn't look so bad... An honorable business man he is. I will support a guy like that till the day I die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Because the old NFL was already franchised to most major cities, the old AFL owners had to drum up action in less glamorous locales. Smaller cities, with good football fans welcomed their AFL teams. When the new league's success established itself as an equal to the old league they merged. Back then owners costs were low. Some were lower than others, but even the new league owners weren't putting up king's ransoms to buy into the league. Most of these men had similar financial investments in their franchises. This probably made the whole 'revenue sharing' thing a little easier for the large market owners to swallow. That, and the work of W. Mara in helping to convince other NFL owners that the the success of their business was dependent on good football on the field. This would give each franchise equal footing in fielding competitve teams. This would insure franchises could stay afloat. Turn the page 50 years and we find the NFL falling victim to it's success. Old owners are selling their franchises at huge profits. Hey, that's the American way, but the standards which helped form the league - equal risks / equal rewards - have been skewed. The league now finds itself demanding greater risks from it's new owners, while offering the same rewards. To offset some of the financial burden of that risk, these new owners want to re-align the league's wealth. It's a natural, economic progression. Owners like Wilson, Rooney, Mara, Hunt, etc. are sitting on goldmines. They have to accommodate these new owners to sustain the business and thereby protect the value of their own francises. They need to compromise on a position which leaves them with a smaller slice of the revenue pie in order to preserve their opportunity to sell their own franchise at an un-godly profit. A fellow poster compared the new owners with homeowners buying into a top-shelf neighborhood. OK. But what if the old guy up the block starts letting his house go, and isn't putting much into it. This can't be good for the rest of the owners on the block, especially the new owners who've poured most of their money into buying their place. If more than one old timer doesn't spend what it takes to keep up their homes, the new folks just bought into a bad investment. The NFL has to figure out a way to help the old owners keep their houses in order while giving the new owners some relief in maintaining theirs. When Ralph's kids sell his 'house' for 500 mil, they'll be happy he did. Once the owners decide what they're going to give each other, they can address what they're going to give they players in their new CBA. It's quite a volatile transition period for the league, and especially it's old owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 NO!!!!!!!!!! The metric system is MUCH better than the American/English system. 594828[/snapback] Not sure which is worse...your opinion or your avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one. When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt. Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables. 595093[/snapback] Kraft bought his National Pizza League franchise for 172 million. He could now sell it tomorrow for a billion with his new luxury restaurant, and he made that 800+ million (500+ million if you subtract what he spent remodeling) ONLY ONLY ONLY because the NPL makes the best pizza in the world and knows exactly how to sell it, not because Bob Kraft makes fabulous pizza and is a great businessman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Kraft bought his National Pizza League franchise for 172 million. He could now sell it tomorrow for a billion with his new luxury restaurant, and he made that 800+ million (500+ million if you subtract what he spent remodeling) ONLY ONLY ONLY because the NPL makes the best pizza in the world and knows exactly how to sell it, not because Bob Kraft mades fabulous pizza and is a great businessman. 596348[/snapback] Excellent point. I won't shed a single tear for Jones, Snyder, Kraft or McNair. When your problem is that you spent 500 million of your play money to buy a team and you're biatching, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Sorry, Mr Republican. But the same reason why the league gets an anti-trust exemption and claims"there is no business like a sports league" is why you're flat wrong here! Not all cities /owners are the same and the local markets are very different, with the economies of scale to larger thriving cities. But the product you're selling league wide is competition based on a level playing field with each team having an equal chance to win. That is what has made the NFL king of all sports leagues. Each teams fans believe they have a chance at the playoffs at the start of the season, with no team buying up all the best players due to economies of scale. Take that away and leave super nouveu riche owners like Kraft, Allen, Snyder et al to dominate the landscape and you have a league that sucks a la MLB.This league was built on revenue sharing and if they don't like the rules after they paid the price to join the "club", tough darts. Stick to mayonnaise, software, etc that made you rich and forget about fu**ing up sports for the rest of us. 594948[/snapback] I'm not sure I understand your post (no doubt because of my own mental failings so your explaining it to me is appreciated). On one hand you talk about all the franchises being different, but on the other hand you seem to present the NFL as being great because a unitary whole which guranteed equality is presented. Do YOU see the NFL as 32 different and separate units doing their own thing (some of whom make good choices and win and profit and some of whom make bad choices with the approrpiate penalties) or do you this as a unitary whole where everyone has an equal chance generally to win it all and no one fails in the big picture irregardless of mistakes they might make. Or alternately is something else going on here. In general, the way of American captalism is to have a system which allows folks to throw their money around as they chose and because of benefits and penalties of outcomes theoetically a better product is produced as the good choosers are rewarded and the bad choosers go away. On the other hand, one can adopt a system which is not the same as but is more akin to socialism where the rich folks are restricted in throwing $ around as th choose and poor decisionmakers know they will never be killed because the safety net assures everyone of survival. My sense is that in practice and in outcome the NFL is taking the latter route by stopping the Snyders etc from spending all the choose on players to create a team as good as they can. The revenue sharing of the big cash cow of TV money allows even idiots like the Bidwills to profit regardless of his marketing decisions. Do you see something else going on here? Do you think the adoption of socialistic tyoe controls is producing a better product than the traditional American way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Excellent point. I won't shed a single tear for Jones, Snyder, Kraft or McNair. When your problem is that you spent 500 million of your play money to buy a team and you're biatching, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. 596353[/snapback] Who are the new owners buying from? The old ones! They're the ones who came into an equitable business situation and are creating an inequitable one for they're own personal gain. Why do you blame guys from buying their franchises? If they could buy them for less, don't you think they would? When the Wilson estate sells the Buffalo franchise to new ownership for say, $500M, without a modified revenue sharing plan in place, the Bills new owner will be forced to bring more money in elsewhere. Even if New York State and Erie County continue to offer tax breaks and help subsidise the franchise, that will not be enough to keep across the board price increases from taking place. That may not even be enough to keep the franchise solvent. Unless the new owner has sentimental ties to WNY, if what's coming in is less than what's going out, he's gone. Any hopes of keeping the Bills in Buffalo hinge on a restructuring of the league's wealth. It will cost Wilson money now, but when his kids hang the 'for sale' sign on the club, at least prospective buyers know they're walking into a managable economic situation with no immediate need to move the team to another location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts