buffalobillsfootball Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer Announces talks with the NFL on future of the Buffalo Bills U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced today that he will meet with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in on Wednesday, January 11 at 10:30 am in his office in Washington, D.C. Schumer will discuss how to keep the Bills in Buffalo, better ways to protect small market teams, and the current NFL blackout rule and its ill effects on fans in Buffalo, Rochester, and across Western New York. In the days after Roger Goodell was elected NFL Commissioner, Schumer called Goodell, a Western New York native, to express how important the Bills are to all of Western New York, and that their loss would be devastating to the heart and soul of the community. Schumer will also discuss with Commissioner Goodell ways to produce revenue sharing rules that will be fair for small market clubs like Buffalo. “This meeting is another important step in our marathon effort to ensure that the Bills stay in Western New York, right where they belong,” Schumer said. “There are a lot of issues still to be resolved but I am looking forward to working with Commissioner Goodell – and his staff – to ensure that all NFL teams, particularly small market teams, are treated fairly.” On the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting will be: the NFL Qualifier Committee’s impending revenue sharing deliberations and decisions, current financial issues facing the Bills, and the NFL blackout rule. Following an April 2006 meeting with Ralph Wilson in Buffalo, Schumer has spearheaded the campaign to produce fair NFL revenue sharing rules so that the Bills can remain financial healthy and located in Buffalo. Schumer worked closely with Commissioner Tagliabue and is now working with Commissioner Goodell to communicate the small market teams’ point of view as negotiations around implementing the new Collective Bargaining Agreement proceed. Last year, Schumer lobbied outgoing NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to ensure the league’s Qualifier Committee, which determines many critical revenue sharing issues, included representatives from small market franchises. On April 21, after a meeting organized by Schumer with Tagliabue and Buffalo native Tim Russert, Tagliabue announced that Bills owner Ralph Wilson would serve on the eight-team committee that is now determining how league revenues will be split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Charlie, what a guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Sometimes having a workaholic senator who likes to make news in the press is a great thing to have for a state regardless of his politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasjute Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 FWIW, we could all e-mail Chuck and give him our support on this. If enough e-mails are sent, someone on his staff should let him know that people are noticing.... E-mail Chuck Schumer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 FWIW, we could all e-mail Chuck and give him our support on this. If enough e-mails are sent, someone on his staff should let him know that people are noticing....E-mail Chuck Schumer I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? Religion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasjute Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Religion... Amen. I used "trade issues" for a topic and made it clear in the first sentence it was about his meeting with Goodell re: the Bills and revenue sharing. Thought about putting homeland security as a topic since upstate NY is my homeland and I'd like to feel more secure about the Bills staying there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HudsonValleyBillsFan Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I just emailed him with the subject of commerce. Thanks for posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 i wrote him too...thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBSS151 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer Announces talks with the NFL on future of the Buffalo Bills If there's a politician involved - it's grandstanding Didn't I see Hillary wearing a Bills cap once ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ah...nys politicians Anyone remember Schumer all over tv telling WNY'ers he is going to get down to the bottom of high oil prices, making sure the big oil companies are sticking in to the people? http://api-ep.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes...MAP_OCT2006.pdf Big oil makes ~ 9.5 cents per gallon while NYS takes 60.1 cents per gallon go get'em chuck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If there's a politician involved - it's grandstanding thumbdown.gif Of course it's grandstanding, pandering, and everything else. But I'm not going to complain when it works in my *favor*. It's how democracy works sometimes - give the people what they want, keep your job. If he succeeds, I don't care if he's running to turn America into a Scientologist theocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ah...nys politiciansAnyone remember Schumer all over tv telling WNY'ers he is going to get down to the bottom of high oil prices, making sure the big oil companies are sticking in to the people? http://api-ep.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes...MAP_OCT2006.pdf Big oil makes ~ 9.5 cents per gallon while NYS takes 60.1 cents per gallon go get'em chuck! You think one senator is gonna take down big oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 You think one senator is gonna take down big oil? no, the sarcasm button was missing on my post i don't think chuck is good for stevestojan...just like the rest of the politicians in NYS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 But he's a liberal, they never do anything positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 This man is an idiot. His pledge to go after Big Oil is either pure irony or absolute stupidity on his part considering NYS has THE highest gas taxes in the country. but nevermind that...seeing how WNY's economy is booming and jobs are sprouting out of the blue, let's get some publicity by rubbing elbows with the bigwigs in the NFL and pull the wool over the eyes of the citizens of WNY some more. Oh well, it's a democracy and you get what you vote for. But he's a liberal, they never do anything positive? Don't even get me started on that...too late. Anyone remember 10 years back when the government was looking at a "comsumption" tax to place on gas, in order force people to cut back on driving? There goal was $.50 for the government per gallon. And of course which esteemed political party was behind this idea? The Dems come out and blame Iran and Bush for high gas prices, and naturally assume that Republican big business interests are protecting oil companies. Democratic policies for the past several years have led to the increase in gas prices including No drilling in Alaska, and over-reaching environmental law that prevent new refineries from being built. But I doubt you'll see Schumer on tv saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If our current administration had an alternative energy policy, we wouldn't need to ruin our planet by drilling in Alaska and building more oil refineries. What the hell are we doing? There's no reason why we don't have practical use of solar energy at this point. Oh, and if you want to cut down on gas prices step 1 would be to outlaw Nascar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 There's no reason why we don't have practical use of solar energy at this point. You mean other than the technology doesn't exist to make it economically viable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced today that he will meet with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Wednesday, January 11 at 10:30 am in his office in Washington, D.C. So will the commish show up at Schumer's office on Wednesday or Thursday, January 11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Oh, and if you want to cut down on gas prices step 1 would be to outlaw Nascar. i've got no problem with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? Why are there options for issues pertaining to Gays/Lebians, Children, Women, and even Animal Rights, but no selection for MEN's ISSUES? It's an outrage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You mean other than the technology doesn't exist to make it economically viable? Aye, but there's a reason why we don't have the technology. I have to think if we had made it a priority during these last two terms to find alternative energy sources we'd be in better position now to become marginally less dependent on oil. There's no way to know for sure, but I don't agree with the lack of emphasis we've put into alternative energy and the environment. Instead of stopping the gays from marrying and worrying about spying on our own citizens, we should be trying to make oil obsolete. Just a humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Please note: this is a gratuitous slam on Hillary. See. This is the difference between someone like Schumer and someone like Hillary. Given that what they're doing is pandering, Shumer has to meet with the NFL Commissioner to make points. All Hillary has to do is bring a former president into the discussion, and suddenly it's "screw this idea of working to earn voter support...I just need to go to a sold-out televised game, wear a hat, eat some chili with the old, decrepit dude who says he owns the place, get out of town in six hours and bada-bing...I have WNY sewn up." I'm far from liberal and admittedly I don't know anything about Schumer, but I can tell you one thing: he's obviously willing to work harder to keep the Bills in town, perceived or otherwise, than Hillary. Hillary cares about Hillary, not WNY. She's blowing everyone and everyone is letting her do it. The only difference between her and Monica Lewinsky is that Monica got some on her dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 BILLS WILL NEVER LEAVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Guys, i wouldn't get my hopes up about Chucky tremendously helping the Bills. First, he is simply an attention whore. The most dangerous place in Washington is in between Chuck Schumer and a video camera. The guy is doing it to get his face on television and that is it. He is not interested in helping the Bills. Second. The death tax is still lingering in the shadows. Even if adjustments are made to the shared revenue policy, the death tax is not going to be changed and we are still going to lose the team. I would love to see the Bills stay, but the liklihood of any of this happening are slim to none. The best thing fans can do is let their voice be heard to the media, and actually sell out some !@#$ing football games. Don't expect ole Chucky to carry your water for you, cause he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 No drilling in Alaska, and over-reaching environmental law that prevent new refineries from being built. Oil companies have been reducing their refinery capacity for years. The assault on ANWR is nothing more than a cheap attempt to gut environmental laws Do you *really* think that oil companies want to spend money on building refineries when it will have the effect of lowering the price of fuels? This is the kind of schit you get when you mix politics and football. Wasn't this thread about the Bills? Go argue about your sexual tendencies for animals and your love for the environment as well as your hatred for oil companies in PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Aye, but there's a reason why we don't have the technology. I have to think if we had made it a priority during these last two terms to find alternative energy sources we'd be in better position now to become marginally less dependent on oil. There's no way to know for sure, but I don't agree with the lack of emphasis we've put into alternative energy and the environment. Instead of stopping the gays from marrying and worrying about spying on our own citizens, we should be trying to make oil obsolete. Just a humble opinion. You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade. Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwbillsfan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade.Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. I will say that I would rather throw a half trillion dollars towards solar,wind,wave energy technologies than throwing it at an ill conceived,illegal, immoral war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I will say that I would rather throw a half trillion dollars towards solar,wind,wave energy technologies than throwing it at an ill conceived,illegal, immoral war. so would I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 You don't think there have been people working on it? Scientific research and progress is slow. More emphasis isn't going to speed anything up. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to speed things up. Do you think there's enough emphasis on curing cancer? We could throw the entire world budget at finding a solution to cancer and you wouldn't have a solution for a decade.Political rhetoric about "more emphasis" is nothing but bullstevestojan. Of course, by throwing oodles of money at the problem we came up with the atom bomb in under 5 years and sent men to the moon in under ten. Perhaps, throwing oodles of money at a problem to get it solved isn't so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I just tried to do this ... but you have to pick a subject heading from a pre-defined list of topics for your e-mail, and I don't think any of them really fit this specific issue/topic .... "Commerce"?? LOL, I just titled mine under "religion"!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts