Kelly the Dog Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Not really sure where this accusation is coming from. Suppose many owners thought they would benefit from the Bills moving to LA. They could set up a collective bargaining agreement with various poison pill arrangements to force this outcome, while leaving most small market teams unaffected. The eligibility requirements I've been hearing about for revenue sharing--and not just from JDG--sound exactly like such a poison pill. The way the negotiations were conducted also strikes me as suspicious. The owners all knew these problems were coming, but apparently some of them waited until the 11th, 12th, or 13th hour to begin seriously negotiating about them. As a result, the agreement that passed did so in a hurried atmosphere with lots of pressure, and without people having time to read it. What was portrayed as mere disorganization or incompetence on the owners' part may actually have been a negotiating ploy on the part of some owners to use the stress and chaos of the situation to insert poison pill provisions. But if you want to go on believing Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Dan Snyder were as innocent as the media portrayed them, go ahead. 660264[/snapback] I live in Los Angeles. There hasn't been a team here for 12 years. You know how many people talk about it? None. There is zero call for a team here. There is not a lot of clamoring or complaining about it. There are news stories in the papers every couple of years with different politicians arguing over lousy stadium concepts. The NFL has been EXTRAORDINARILY tepid and wishy-washy about putting a franchise here. Sure they want one because it's an embarassment, and it's the second biggest market, and eventually there will be a team here. But do you really think if they really wanted or needed a team in Los Angeles there would not be one here in twelve years? It only took them four years total to put a team back in Cleveland. And it's going to be about 15 before one gets here by 2009. In all honesty, if there was a team in Los Angeles now and not Buffalo, do you know how much difference there would have been in the TV contracts? I think not one cent. They don't base those things solely on ratings. They lose money on football. They overpaid this year because football is huge. They are loss leaders for the networks. They are status symbols. NBC didn't think it needed it and look what happened, so the next time they come up they overbid. That has nothing to do with no team or a team in Los Angeles. To think that this is some big conspiracy to get the Bills out of Buffalo, to me, is simply ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 In all honesty, if there was a team in Los Angeles now and not Buffalo, do you know how much difference there would have been in the TV contracts? I think not one cent. They don't base those things solely on ratings. , to me, is simply ludicrous. 660310[/snapback] What do you *think* they base them on? Why is the NFC contract worth $100 million more than the AFC contract? If a home NFL game gets @30% share in the home market, do you really think that a 30% share in the LA market isn't "not one cent" more than a 30% or even a 40% share in the Buffalo market? I think you are overly reliant upon anecdotal evidence about the interest in football in LA. People aren't going to spend every day whining about something out of their control - but that hardly means that Angelenos wouldn't follow an LA team, or that LA-area corporations wouldn't all sign lucrative sponsorship deals with an area team. The delay in getting a team in Los Angeles doesn't mean that the NFL isn't interested, so much as it means that there have been real problems in getting a solid stadium proposal put together. There's also the matter of the NFL also having to figure out how to put a franchise in LA once a stadium is ready - there's little appetite for expansion, so that means undertaking the politically risky process of moving a franchise. There certainly isn't anything like the threat of an antitrust lawsuit hanging over the NFL like there was in the Cleveland case. So, the NFL's been moving slowly in order to ensure that there is a good stadium deal in place, and also in order to figure out how to get a franchise there. It seems entirely possible that the opening stages of the second-half of that equation are falling into place. JDG - Who would still love to see an on-the-record quote from the NFL about wanting to keep the Bills in Buffalo..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 To think that this is some big conspiracy to get the Bills out of Buffalo, to me, is simply ludicrous. 660310[/snapback] I for one don't think that Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder are very happy about having to share some of their locally generated revenues with teams like Buffalo. If they can force the Bills to a market with more corporate sponsorships--such as LA--then that's one less team they will be forced to subsidize. But maybe they are too generous and altruistic to allow such a consideration to influence any of their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I for one don't think that Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder are very happy about having to share some of their locally generated revenues with teams like Buffalo. If they can force the Bills to a market with more corporate sponsorships--such as LA--then that's one less team they will be forced to subsidize. But maybe they are too generous and altruistic to allow such a consideration to influence any of their actions. 660402[/snapback] Think of it this way: Who would Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder rather fight over free agents and coaches in order to win a championship? A Ralph Wilson in Buffalo complaining about having a small market team and not being able to compete with the Jerry Joneses and Daniel Snyders of the world? OR... a young billionaire like themselves in Los Angeles, California with all the money in the world trying to make a big splash on the scene and the city and the league like they did throwing around 15-20 million signing bonuses because he can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Like I said Kelly, I doubt Snyder and Jones are afraid of competition. In fact I'd say they THRIVE on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 What do you *think* they base them on? Why is the NFC contract worth $100 million more than the AFC contract? If a home NFL game gets @30% share in the home market, do you really think that a 30% share in the LA market isn't "not one cent" more than a 30% or even a 40% share in the Buffalo market? I think you are overly reliant upon anecdotal evidence about the interest in football in LA. People aren't going to spend every day whining about something out of their control - but that hardly means that Angelenos wouldn't follow an LA team, or that LA-area corporations wouldn't all sign lucrative sponsorship deals with an area team. The delay in getting a team in Los Angeles doesn't mean that the NFL isn't interested, so much as it means that there have been real problems in getting a solid stadium proposal put together. There's also the matter of the NFL also having to figure out how to put a franchise in LA once a stadium is ready - there's little appetite for expansion, so that means undertaking the politically risky process of moving a franchise. There certainly isn't anything like the threat of an antitrust lawsuit hanging over the NFL like there was in the Cleveland case. So, the NFL's been moving slowly in order to ensure that there is a good stadium deal in place, and also in order to figure out how to get a franchise there. It seems entirely possible that the opening stages of the second-half of that equation are falling into place. JDG - Who would still love to see an on-the-record quote from the NFL about wanting to keep the Bills in Buffalo..... 660334[/snapback] That is conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever other than your conspiratorial head. The fact is there hasn't been a team in LA for a dozen years, the NFL hasn't tried very hard WHATSOEVER to get one here, there is no clamoring for a team here whatsoever, and the league is doing great without one. If they wanted a team here they would have built a stadium. With a new stadium there would have been a team here in 2-3 years. NO ONE wants to go down to the LA Coliseum where they are actually going to play. It's the middle of the hood. No one goes down there now. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if they NFL really wanted a team in LA that one wouldn't be here already. They make way more money threatening to move here, thereby jacking up the prices in their own cities than they would make moving a frnachise here. The NFC contract with FOX is bigger because they have all the old time cities and teams with generations of followings and the AFC has all the new and mostly smaller cities. That is obvious. The NY Giants get a lot more TV watchers than the NY Jets. Last year it was like 300,000 more per game. They are a more established franchise. Dallas is evil but Dallas is a great football town. Green Bay/Milawaukee is a great football town. Philadelphia is a great football town. The cities and teams in the AFC because they were from the AFL and the second tier to begin with, like San Diego and Buffalo and Cincinnati and Oakland and Miami (despite its size). That doesn't help your argument at all. It's always been that way for 30 years since the merger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud8andbills Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Ok, so John makes some sense. Of course the world lives on a "Out with the old, In with the new" attitude. Buffalo is a smaller market and Ralph is seeming to try to keep Buffalo in Buffalo. I am 100% behind him, it seems a certain billionaire is also. But John, WHAP, SOCK, BAM, Norwood is so behind us. We are living for the future, and Ralph is also. Try picking on another subject, like one woman cusses another on pit road. Everybody loves a cat-fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill in Livonia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 He's such a little b*tch. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the dude's ever been laid. 658271[/snapback] Who?.... Ralph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Think of it this way: Who would Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder rather fight over free agents and coaches in order to win a championship? A Ralph Wilson in Buffalo complaining about having a small market team and not being able to compete with the Jerry Joneses and Daniel Snyders of the world? OR... a young billionaire like themselves in Los Angeles, California with all the money in the world trying to make a big splash on the scene and the city and the league like they did throwing around 15-20 million signing bonuses because he can? 660489[/snapback] Based on all the poison pills they added to the collective bargaining agreement, it looks like Kraft, Jones, etc. have chosen the LA route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Based on all the poison pills they added to the collective bargaining agreement, it looks like Kraft, Jones, etc. have chosen the LA route. 660636[/snapback] What poison pills? This is all rumor still. It hasnt even been finalized and Ralph is the only one claiming there is such a thing, and other sources, granted, lousy ones, have refuted it. And their refutation makes a lot more sense and is a lot more detailed than Ralph's claim, at least to me. Not to mention that there is very likely going to be a team in LA before Ralph dies unless he dies quick. And it would go against virtually everything Ralph Wilson has ever said in 46 years to sell the team quickly to a non-Buffalo guy who immediately picked up the team and moved them to LA. The one guy that is complaining, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 What poison pills? This is all rumor still. It hasnt even been finalized and Ralph is the only one claiming there is such a thing, and other sources, granted, lousy ones, have refuted it. And their refutation makes a lot more sense and is a lot more detailed than Ralph's claim, at least to me. Not to mention that there is very likely going to be a team in LA before Ralph dies unless he dies quick. And it would go against virtually everything Ralph Wilson has ever said in 46 years to sell the team quickly to a non-Buffalo guy who immediately picked up the team and moved them to LA. The one guy that is complaining, mind you. 660668[/snapback] Mike Brown is talking about poison pills too: http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5199 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Mike Brown is talking about poison pills too: http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5199 662451[/snapback] Here is what he actually said, in that article. Brown is concerned that revenue sharing isn’t going to even get off the ground very effectively because of a list of qualifiers that have yet to be determined. He thinks there might be loopholes that disqualify some low-revenue teams. He thinks there might be.... which is what Ralph is saying... and I commend Ralph for bringing this to the forefront. But there arent any "poison pills" yet... there aren't any rules yet... the thing hasnt been finalized. They may not even be any poison pills. Ralph is trying to prevent these, not dispose of these. Going from that to what a lot of people here are saying that this is some conspiracy to run out of town the small market teams is quite a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Here is what he actually said, in that article.He thinks there might be.... which is what Ralph is saying... and I commend Ralph for bringing this to the forefront. But there arent any "poison pills" yet... there aren't any rules yet... the thing hasnt been finalized. They may not even be any poison pills. Ralph is trying to prevent these, not dispose of these. Going from that to what a lot of people here are saying that this is some conspiracy to run out of town the small market teams is quite a stretch. 662469[/snapback] Stop making sense and get back in line with the goose-stepping mindless banter of " The Bills are leaving ! ". Ralph is trying to be proactive prior to the CBA and the " Fuzzy " qualifiers being ratified. Any numbskull can blather on ad nauseum about our local economy and small market plight... but that applies to 6-8 other franchises also. The NFL ISN'T all about Corporate sales and shutting out the real fans with high costs, contrary to the big market brain drain. It will be the death of the golden goose if we see the retraction of several franchises. Certainly there are no willing and able cities dying for an NFL franchise to move, especially with the new terms of the CBA which seem to favor only the established big market franchises. Maybe Ralph is actually being bold in attempting to open some eyes to the absurdity of what is happening. A constant jump in the Cap. An obscene overpayment of players. $100 + for crappy nosebleed seats and $35 for parking in D.C. WTF ? That won't last 5 years without many saying " Go F#*k Youself. I quit ! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 I dunno if John Clayton has enough time to really research his articles this time of year. He looks like he'd be a little too busy doing people's taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts