Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 To throw moldy cold water on the inane rumour - NFL does not allow corporate ownership of a franchise. After Ted Rogers passed away, there isn't a clear cut successor to his estate, given the wife & four children. Add the minor complication that NFL frowns on owners who also have controlling interests in other sports franchises (although select waivers have been granted), and this rumour is fleeting, at best. Except that Rogers Communications (the corporation) and the Rogers group (which includes MLSE chairman Larry Tanenbaum and Rogers vice-chair Phil Lind) aren't quite the same thing. Can Tanenbaum come up with the cash to hit the 30-percent threshold to be considered the majority owner in an NFL bid? Let's hope we don't find out the answer to that question any time soon. And because the Leafs and Raptors are in the Toronto market, the NFL can't use that to block a sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 if this happened, St Louis would be another rumored destination for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Population of Green Bay 101k Population of Buffalo 275k Population of Chicago 2.8m Population of Toronto 2.5m Distance from BUF to TOR 100 miles Distance from CHI to GB 200 miles Chicago and Toronto are about the same size, Buffalo and Green Bay are similar sized (work with me here... as far as NFL markets go). Those two teams have a healthy rivalry with similar sizes, distances, etc. AND they are in the same division! A Toronto team may not cut into the fan base too much. However, stadiums are not similar sized. I am going to post this anyway because I did all the work for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Population of Buffalo 275k 3 million within a one hour drive Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Except that Rogers Communications (the corporation) and the Rogers group (which includes MLSE chairman Larry Tanenbaum and Rogers vice-chair Phil Lind) aren't quite the same thing. Can Tanenbaum come up with the cash to hit the 30-percent threshold to be considered the majority owner in an NFL bid? Let's hope we don't find out the answer to that question any time soon. And because the Leafs and Raptors are in the Toronto market, the NFL can't use that to block a sale. The NFL rule is exclusive of market location, as the rule prohibits cross-ownership of any sports franchise. I doubt NFL would grant a waiver to place a franchise less than 100 miles away from a struggling one which needs 20% Canadian fans. I doubt Lind has a large enough net worth to buy a big part of an NFL franchise, and if Tannenbaum is the lead partner, then it's not a Rogers group deal and Rogers Communications would have little part in the deal (kind of what the OP speculated) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The NFL rule is exclusive of market location, as the rule prohibits cross-ownership of any sports franchise. I doubt NFL would grant a waiver to place a franchise less than 100 miles away from a struggling one which needs 20% Canadian fans. I doubt Lind has a large enough net worth to buy a big part of an NFL franchise, and if Tannenbaum is the lead partner, then it's not a Rogers group deal and Rogers Communications would have little part in the deal (kind of what the OP speculated) Someone should have told that to Wayne Huizenga before he bought the Dolphins, then. The rule only prohibits cross-ownership of franchises in different cities (i.e., Jeremy Jacobs would have to dump the Bruins to buy the Bills, but Tom Golisano could make a bid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 This is a silly story for so many reasons as has been pointed out by many of the posters. One simple thing to add is the Rams and Bills would not play each other very often as they are not going to be in the same division. They are not even in the same conference and the NFL is not going to rearrange several divisions to get them in the same division. The NFL has let the Jets/Giants and SF/Oakland stay in separate conferences through several rearrangements of divisions over the last 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Someone should have told that to Wayne Huizenga before he bought the Dolphins, then. The rule only prohibits cross-ownership of franchises in different cities (i.e., Jeremy Jacobs would have to dump the Bruins to buy the Bills, but Tom Golisano could make a bid). As well as Paul Allen (unless you consider Seattle & Portland the same market) Or when Dolans were making a run at the Jets. Bottom line is that the NFL cross-ownership rule exists, and the prospective owner needs to get a waiver from the league as part of the approval process. I don't see that waiver passing for anyone associated with Rogers or MLSE while the Bills are still in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1991-2000 1997: The rules governing cross-ownership were modified, permitting NFL club owners to also own teams in other sports in their home market or markets without NFL teams. The vote was 24-5 (one abstention) in favor of approval, March 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Like SF-Oak.....Balt-Wash..... I think it would be great. jets/giants, yeah it could never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1991-2000 I stand corrected on the cross-ownership change that wily Huyzenger pushed through, although knowing who cast one of those vocal 5 "no" votes, the main point stands. No way no how will the league approve another franchise moving to TO while Bills are still in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The Rams had a new stadium built about 10 yeras ago. They wont be moved anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I stand corrected on the cross-ownership change that wily Huyzenger pushed through, although knowing who cast one of those vocal 5 "no" votes, the main point stands. No way no how will the league approve another franchise moving to TO while Bills are still in Buffalo. Everything is negotiable, all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The Rams had a new stadium built about 10 years ago. They wont be moved anytime soon. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I stand corrected on the cross-ownership change that wily Huyzenger pushed through, although knowing who cast one of those vocal 5 "no" votes, the main point stands. No way no how will the league approve another franchise moving to TO while Bills are still in Buffalo. Dunno. There is somewhat of a precedent with the Ravens, but there are several differences -- Balto already had a long NFL history, and as I recall, the Redskins got a significant chuck of cash to go along with the move. Not sure they could pay enough to make Ralph shut up, if someone tries to move into a city he's considered part of his territory for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The Rams had a new stadium built about 10 yeras ago. They wont be moved anytime soon. Don't be so sure that the stadium is an anchor. From today's Post-Dispatch: St. Louis Rams owners turn up search A provision in the lease states that the Edward Jones Dome must remain a "top tier" facility — in other words, be considered among the top 25 percent (or top eight) stadiums in the league. A review process on whether the stadium meets "top tier" status occurs every 10 years. The next review cycle begins in 2012 with a proposal from the stadium authority on what it is willing to do to have the dome meet top tier status. Arbitration is possible. But if there is no agreement in place by the end of the 2014 season, the dome lease reverts to a year-to-year basis, in theory making it easier to move the team. It will take plenty of give and take from both parties because the proliferation of new stadiums since the dome opened in 1995 makes it virtually impossible for the existing dome to achieve top tier status. Even so, Rams officials privately have expressed frustration that there hasn't been more dialogue with local officials on long-term lease issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanCity Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 For anyone thinking about using the Leafs-Sabres comparison, that is not a good analogy. The NHL has max capacity Arenas of 19-20,000. The NFL would be looking at more like 50-60,000. Those numbers do not compute. And, yes, the Bills pull a sizeable fan base from deeper into Southwestern Ontario than St. Catherines and Niagara Falls.. Toronto and the surrounding area probably provide about 5-6,000 seats per game. Not exactly a drop in the bucket. I pray that they do not get their own team. Give them back to LA. Send them to OK City. Just don't put them in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanCity Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 jets/giants, yeah it could never work. Think of the money and the size of the fan base you are talking about here. SF/Oakland draw from an expansive and densely populated (not to mention the corporate headquarters for multi-billion dollar tech companies) Northern California region, Washington/Baltimore relies on a largely wealthy (think: government paid)and sizeable population and draws from the populous Eastern Seaboard and the Jets/Giants are drawing from NYC and northern New Jersey. I guess Buffalo/Toronto just grew to a population of 15 million in each region? More bad analogies. This would not bode well. If you are a Buffalo fan, which I assume you are as you are on this board, this would in no way be a positive for retaining the lifeblood of Buffalo sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gflande1 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Like SF-Oak.....Balt-Wash..... I think it would be great. One big problem with your comparison...as far as population and average household income...Buf-Tor < SF-OAK or Balt-Wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Not sure they could pay enough to make Ralph shut up, if someone tries to move into a city he's considered part of his territory for decades. Are you joking? He's already accepted a check (form the same gang, no less) for $78 million to willfully yank his team out of Buffalo every year and into a city that really hasn't shown a huge interest in his Bills (unless they are playing the Dolphins, apparently). I think it is widely understood on the other side that Ralph will accept Canadian currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts