Lv-Bills Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 .......is that, even with the new revenue sharing plan, it seems that Ralph wasn't able to change the qualifier that if someone were to purchase the Bills, that new owner wouldn't qualify for revenue sharing. At Ralph's age, that is troubling. A new Bills owner, who would try to keep the team in Buffalo could struggle prety bad, unless he moves the team. That could be the one that comes back to bite us all in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 .......is that, even with the new revenue sharing plan, it seems that Ralph wasn't able to change the qualifier that if someone were to purchase the Bills, that new owner wouldn't qualify for revenue sharing. At Ralph's age, that is troubling. A new Bills owner, who would try to keep the team in Buffalo could struggle prety bad, unless he moves the team. That could be the one that comes back to bite us all in the ass. No need to worry. Since NYS in in such great shape , Schumer will have plenty of time to work on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 For some reason, I think any new owner would probably fight htis and say they could not keep the team in Buffalo without revenue sharing, so the NFL would have to make an exception to allow the team to stay or look bad for forcing a team to move after the owner, who helped form the league we know now and has owned the team since it started, dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 For some reason, I think any new owner would probably fight htis and say they could not keep the team in Buffalo without revenue sharing, so the NFL would have to make an exception to allow the team to stay or look bad for forcing a team to move after the owner, who helped form the league we know now and has owned the team since it started, dies. on the contrary- a new owner would be happy for the excuse to move the team to a more profitable city with a state of the art stadium extorted from the taxpayers as part of the package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairweather fan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 For some reason, I think any new owner would probably fight htis and say they could not keep the team in Buffalo without revenue sharing, so the NFL would have to make an exception to allow the team to stay or look bad for forcing a team to move after the owner, who helped form the league we know now and has owned the team since it started, dies. Sorry, the league he founded was the AFL, and the NFL wants to get out of Buffalo, preferably to go to Los Angeles, and eventually put a team in Toronto. These new owners did not make their millions by stopping to worry about old ownership, old coaches, or cities that are carrying the bonds for the gilded stadiums that are still not paid for. Check out Indianapolis and Minnesota, where new buildings are being constructed with 20 year bonds still due on the indoor stadiums that were constructed to get/keep franchises. Do you really think that New Orleans will still keep a team after this 5 year extension runs out, in a city which is now projected to never again have a population of over 300,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 on the contrary- a new owner would be happy for the excuse to move the team to a more profitable city with a state of the art stadium extorted from the taxpayers as part of the package. kinda depends on the new owner doesn't it? typical owner (jonesnyder) yes. we have one prayer for life after Ralph, unfortunately that prayer is eying Toronto (according to an email i received). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 .......is that, even with the new revenue sharing plan, it seems that Ralph wasn't able to change the qualifier that if someone were to purchase the Bills, that new owner wouldn't qualify for revenue sharing. At Ralph's age, that is troubling. A new Bills owner, who would try to keep the team in Buffalo could struggle prety bad, unless he moves the team. That could be the one that comes back to bite us all in the ass. Interesting observation, Lv. Don't mean to pile on your thread, but for others to read, the link to the Cincy enquirer article is: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../703270332/1066 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Sorry, the league he founded was the AFL, and the NFL wants to get out of Buffalo, preferably to go to Los Angeles, and eventually put a team in Toronto. These new owners did not make their millions by stopping to worry about old ownership, old coaches, or cities that are carrying the bonds for the gilded stadiums that are still not paid for. Check out Indianapolis and Minnesota, where new buildings are being constructed with 20 year bonds still due on the indoor stadiums that were constructed to get/keep franchises. Do you really think that New Orleans will still keep a team after this 5 year extension runs out, in a city which is now projected to never again have a population of over 300,000. Yes, he help found the AFL, which merged to become the NFL that we know today Wheres the proof the league wants out of Buffalo to go to LA or Toronto? Toronto keeps getting turned down for NFL franchises, even though they have perspective owners, the owner of MLSE (Maple leaf Sports Entertainment, the owner of the Leafs and Raptors) and Ted Rogers (owner of Rogers Cable and the toronto Blue Jays) who have both expressed interest in owning a NFL team. If the league really wants to move buffalo, they wouldn't have listened to Ralph and re worked parts of the CBA to help him out. Would Buffalo be the first choice the NFL would want to expand into, No. Are they trying to get a team out of Buffalo, somewhere a team has been since almost the start of the current NFL? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 Interesting observation, Lv. Don't mean to pile on your thread, but for others to read, the link to the Cincy enquirer article is: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../703270332/1066 No Prob....thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yes, he help found the AFL, which merged to become the NFL that we know today Wheres the proof the league wants out of Buffalo to go to LA or Toronto? Toronto keeps getting turned down for NFL franchises, even though they have perspective owners, the owner of MLSE (Maple leaf Sports Entertainment, the owner of the Leafs and Raptors) and Ted Rogers (owner of Rogers Cable and the toronto Blue Jays) who have both expressed interest in owning a NFL team. If the league really wants to move buffalo, they wouldn't have listened to Ralph and re worked parts of the CBA to help him out. Would Buffalo be the first choice the NFL would want to expand into, No. Are they trying to get a team out of Buffalo, somewhere a team has been since almost the start of the current NFL? I doubt it. I don't agree with this whatsoever. If the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Colts moved, there is no doubt the Bills could move one day. On a side note though, I am one, in the minority I think, that wished the NFL would expand. I hate divisions only having four teams. I wish they would have 5 personally. I also wish Toronto would be one of the expansion teams. I think they'd make a great rival with the Bills, and those two games would sellout every year in both stadiums. While our friends to the north help the Bills in attendance, I don't think it's as much as some make it out to be. A franchise in Toronto, IMO, would help the Bills. We'd be down to only having to worry about selling out 7 games per year. That wouldn't be hard at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A franchise in Toronto would Kill the Bills Say what you will about Canadians (many of you Americans would probably prefer a wall is built to block us out for some reason) but without them, the Bills would not be able to exist. Many fans travel from across the border to go to games, and right now, the Bills can't afford to lose more fans. Putting a team in Toronto would pull fans and marketing areas away from Buffalo. it barely works for hockey, and they only have to sell out 18,000 seat arenas, and when Buffalo plays Toronto, Buffalo becomes Toronto South Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A franchise in Toronto would Kill the Bills Say what you will about Canadians (many of you Americans would probably prefer a wall is built to block us out for some reason) but without them, the Bills would not be able to exist. Many fans travel from across the border to go to games, and right now, the Bills can't afford to lose more fans. Putting a team in Toronto would pull fans and marketing areas away from Buffalo. it barely works for hockey, and they only have to sell out 18,000 seat arenas, and when Buffalo plays Toronto, Buffalo becomes Toronto South Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 .......is that, even with the new revenue sharing plan, it seems that Ralph wasn't able to change the qualifier that if someone were to purchase the Bills, that new owner wouldn't qualify for revenue sharing. At Ralph's age, that is troubling. A new Bills owner, who would try to keep the team in Buffalo could struggle prety bad, unless he moves the team. That could be the one that comes back to bite us all in the ass. That is a very important point. I did not know that was not included in the deal. When this issue came up when the collectively bargaining agreement was approved, I considered that to be the most important issue. Ralph is not going to live forever. It is likely that, if an out-of-area guy purchases the Bills, he would look for an excuse to move the team. Keeping the Bills in Buffalo is more important than whether a outdoor chain store opens at the Aud or what other people say about Buffalo. The Bills presence has a significant impact on the area as well as every person on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 A franchise in Toronto would Kill the Bills Say what you will about Canadians (many of you Americans would probably prefer a wall is built to block us out for some reason) but without them, the Bills would not be able to exist. Many fans travel from across the border to go to games, and right now, the Bills can't afford to lose more fans. Putting a team in Toronto would pull fans and marketing areas away from Buffalo. it barely works for hockey, and they only have to sell out 18,000 seat arenas, and when Buffalo plays Toronto, Buffalo becomes Toronto South It barely works for hockey because hockey isn't as popular. Period. As a matter of fact, it's not even close. And I still think the Canadian fan base of the Bills is smallish. I have absolutely nothign against Canada. I stay over there most Bills home weekends. However, a Toronto team would not kill Buffalo. Buffalo is killing Buffalo. And yes, there would be a mass exodus of football fans going to back and forth to games. Football is a different animal than hockey. If the Bills were decent at all, and Toronto wasn't selling it's tickets, there would be a huge exodus of Bills fan heading up there to see that game. Don't know how accurate this is/was, but about 6 years ago, I knew the assistant season ticket manager up there (Jason Andreef). He told me that, at that time, the estimated Canadian fans at Bills games were less than 5,000. The season ticket numbers were around 2,000. I think, though, this is before the Bills really starting marekting big time in Southern Ontario. Don't know how accurate that is, or even was back then. When you simply go across the border, as close as even Niagara Falls....no one has NFL gear on. The games shown on TV aren't really being watched all that much. There is almost zero coverage on their TV stations, as all that is on is hockey. There is a huge difference as soon as you cross the border. I actually think a team in Toronto would enhance the NFL in Southern Ontario. As it is right now, the Bills winning a little more, and having some direction would fill the stadium again, and a team in Toronto wouldn't effect that one bit, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Say what you will about Canadians (many of you Americans would probably prefer a wall is built to block us out for some reason) Perhaps their unfair trade policies? An auto company I worked for had to establish some component manufacturing in Canada before our US-made product could be sold there. We could not ship vehicles to Canada with Michelin tires, because same were manufactured in Canada and they viewed it as re-importation. I would visit our Canadian manufacturing operations from time to time. When asked my occupation, I was most times pulled aside for a chat - the assumption being that I was there to steal some technology. US drug companies are strong-armed...if they don't give the health care system deeply discounted script items, they can't sell their OTC drugs, cosmetics, etc. So US consumers pay the R&D costs. Canadians are free to work in the US, and take their earnings back, but it is very difficult for an American to gain permission to work in Canada. As a youngster going to Sherkston, Crystal Beach, etc., I was often asked if I had at least 20 bucks. The "official" reason was to discourage vagrants. The real reason was to make sure I had money to spend in Canada. I don't know if it's still the case, but there were signs in Niagara Falls, Ont, that purported to give directions for a return to the US. What they did, was re-direct one back to the NF business district. One man's tale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 .......is that, even with the new revenue sharing plan, it seems that Ralph wasn't able to change the qualifier that if someone were to purchase the Bills, that new owner wouldn't qualify for revenue sharing. At Ralph's age, that is troubling. A new Bills owner, who would try to keep the team in Buffalo could struggle prety bad, unless he moves the team. That could be the one that comes back to bite us all in the ass. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you proof of the WNY motto: "For every silver lining, there is a cloud...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts