Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 While I think this would be bad for Buffalo football fans I think there may well be a lot of positive advantages for WNY if out political leaders were aggressive in exploiting the opportunities provided (pretty doubtful knowing our leaders). WNY would stand to gain a lot econmincally by fostering more of a relationship and more visits to WNY by the larger population of Southern Ontario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Another reason is that the players hate having 2-4 extra "travel games" per year. With the amount of money Erie County has sunk into the Stadium, I think getting 8 games a year is the least we can expect. Moreover, any "sharing" with Toronto would become unequal over time. The Toronto area has over twice the popuation of Buffalo-Rochester-Dunkirk. As such, I don't want any piece of such a "partnership." Either the politicans in NYS, Erie County, and the City of Buffalo will get their act in gear and stem the tide of decline, or else my beloved home city will eventually fade away and the Bills will be forced to move on. JDG 594495[/snapback] I agree...with everything, I think. As far as the "sharing" and TO's advantage, i agree agree agree agree. But, again, this is a very stoopid, will never happen, hypothetical question. IF we were to HAVE to make the decision, I'd choose to share rather than lose. That's all I'm saying. As for the home town fans getting 8 games ("the least we can expect") didn't you just argue against that in another thread? One other quick thought. While Toronto is a HUGE market compared to Buffalo, a change to Toronto would hurt the American televison networks (who pay the NFL team's expenses). While it makes perfect sense, IMO, for global/inernational companies (Coke, Chevy, Bud. etc.) to reach Buffalonians as well as Torontonians with their message, for some reason these companies cannot resolve the spill-over between countries in a sensible manor. Buffalo gets a little extra consideration because of the Canadian audience...but, that's all it is...a little consideration. The Canadian audience to an ad running in Buffalo gets no where close to the $ value it deserves given the audience boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 The post about playing a neutral site game in Toronto got me thinking. I want to paint a scenario for you. Tell me what you think. We all worry about losing the Bills to L.A. and being a small market team revenue-wise. If you could share the Bills with Toronto as a way of ensuring they will always be the BUFFALO Bills, would you do it? WHAT IF: The Bills train in Canada and play 2 regular season games in Toronto. Further, the Bills bid for the Super Bowl to be played in Toronto. WHAT BUFFALO GETS OUT OF IT: Ensure the Bills never move completely. Gain access to sponsor money that could put the Bills at a par with Dallas, New England and Washington. A chance to be competitive, pay more for coaches, have more scouting, and be a more attractive destination for free agents. If you're a Bills fan worried about the Bills moving, or at least staying competitve in a free-spending NFL, you have to be realistic and know that things can't last forever. They used to let you into War Memorial with kegs, for heaven sake! So there are many things about cheering for the Bills that have changed over time. If sharing the Bills meant keeping them the Bills forever, I would be in favor of that. Buffalonians have many great qualities, but a glaring fault is self-pity, having a loser's mentality, and always feeling victimized. For a change, why not go on the offensive? Why not find a way to make the game work in our favor for once? Jones and Kraft don't want to subsidize teams like Buffalo? Fine, we'll get creative and start generating more revenue than you. Then you can cry about us. PTR 594328[/snapback] Then why doesn't Oakland share the Raiders with LA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Then why doesn't Oakland share the Raiders with LA? 594713[/snapback] i figure this is simply a sarcastic remark. But, just in case: LA and Oaklane are about a 6-8 hour drive from each other. It'd be close to NYC and Buffalo sharing a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 As for the home town fans getting 8 games ("the least we can expect") didn't you just argue against that in another thread? As a one-off promotional stunt, I figure we can be cool with it. But not if it means only using the Stadium for 4-6 games a year. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I'd have no problem giving Toronto one of our preseaon games. In fact, I'd encourage it. Training camp in Rochester, 1 preseason game in Toronto, maybe the other at the Carrier Dome...this would be a great way to further regionalize the team and gain more fans/team revenue. But a regular season game? No !@#$ing way. There are only 8 of 'em. Each one is precious. 594452[/snapback] Good point. Also, once they start having one home game in Toronto, it may end up being, 2, then 4, and who knows. There's nowhere to tailgate in Toronto around the Skydome for the most part and the capacity is much less than it is at RWS. You could count anyone from east of B-lo out for the drive, it's simply too far. They'd be better off playing a game in the Carrier Dome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 No way, eh? Four reasons. One: Skydome or Rogers Centre as it's called these days is not big enough. They only have aboot 54,000 seats. Two: The exchange rate. Canadian Loonie is still weaker than the American Dollar. Combine those two factors and tickets would have to be minimum $150-$200 each to offset the revenue loss of 20,000 less fans and the exchange rate difference. Three: The game(s) would never sell out because they are not played on ice. Four: It would not be a money making proposition and the Bills can't afford that. Bills have played a preseason game or two before in TO. If they want to do that again, go ahead but never a regular season game unless the threat of moving to Anaheim was no longer a threat but a very real possibility (which it may be if the CBA goes boom and there is an uncapped year- the Bills would quickly become the Pirates/Royals/Devil rays of the NFL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 (which it may be if the CBA goes boom and there is an uncapped year- the Bills would quickly become the Pirates/Royals/Devil rays of the NFL) 594775[/snapback] Yeah, that's really the thing that Bills fans need to watch. Right now it's not going well. They have about 12 months left, before it's too late, to figure it out. It's not likely to occur during the season either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts