Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. That's because it's his team playing up there, not someone else's who would cut into his season-ticket/premium-seat base. We're talking a heck of a lot more than $78 million to make that go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 That's because it's his team playing up there, not someone else's who would cut into his season-ticket/premium-seat base. We're talking a heck of a lot more than $78 million to make that go away. I hear ya, Lori. But after seeing how many non-Bills fans there are in TO, I'm not sure RW would lose much of his S. Ontario fan base. Fans in that region have been fans for generations in many cases. I guess I'm saying that he would 'gain' far fewer new fans in TO than he would 'lose' in S. Ontario if a team were located in Toronto. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. He's accepting Canadian currency as part of a deal which he felt was necessary to keep the team in Buffalo. If he feels that having a team in Toronto would threaten the Bills (which he most certainly would) then it would be an entirely different story. I'm not saying going to say never as did the previous post, but I think it's unlikely that Ralph would accept a franchise in Toronto without massive compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 It's like having Rochester having an NFL team... distance wise I mean it could happen and it would be awesome... but i dont see it happening Distance has nothing to do with it. Market size is everything. Don't plan on having a major sports franchise in Rochester any time soon (not to open the door for that moron lacrosse fan from a few weeks ago). Like SF-Oak.....Balt-Wash..... How about NYG/NYJ? Oh wait... Strickly? We reach new lows every day. You haven't read B.Harami's thread yet on which Bills is the best dressed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 If you have ever driven to Cleveland and to Toronto, I think you would realize, Toronto much much closer. Cleveland? Difference is only about 80 miles... And given the driving and the roads (bridge/border/QEW)... You can probably be in CLEV just as fast even given it is 80 miles further... Maybe. Now Erie, PA is about the same distance as TOR from BFLO... But, that is no-man's land between BFLO/CLEV/PITT. IMO, for some reason... I equate CLEV with a more "MidWest" feel vs. BFLO/TOR. O-H-I-O to me is a whole 'nother world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Yeah, I was just looking for that. Someone asked if the eight-game contract with the Bills would preclude them from striking a deal to buy and move another team, and the answer was no. I've been trying the Globe and Mail -- Brunt did some solid work on that story -- but I'll check AP instead. Was that your byline, or someone based in Toronto? took a while, but i found the story Wilson/Rogers TO presser grafs 14-16: "Those partners are Blue Jays owner Ted Rogers and Larry Tanenbaum, chairman of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto Raptors. The two have formed a partnership to pursue an NFL franchise. The deal with the Bills is considered their first concrete step toward achieving that goal, and an opportunity to showcase Toronto's potential to the league. The deal with the Bills wouldn't preclude Rogers and Tanenbaum from making bids to buy and relocate other NFL franchises if they go up for sale." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Gracias, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Difference is only about 80 miles... And given the driving and the roads (bridge/border/QEW)... You can probably be in CLEV just as fast even given it is 80 miles further... Maybe. Now Erie, PA is about the same distance as TOR from BFLO... But, that is no-man's land between BFLO/CLEV/PITT. IMO, for some reason... I equate CLEV with a more "MidWest" feel vs. BFLO/TOR. O-H-I-O to me is a whole 'nother world. I did not realize they were so close. I agree Buff / Tor always seemed much much closer to me than Buff/Clev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain 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). I hear you on that one, its been brought up a million times. But where does Stan Kroenke fit in? He has 40% ownership in the Rams, but also owns the Nuggets and the Avalanche, where the Broncos play. You think the rule only stands for majority ownership, or all invested parties? If that's the case, Jacobs could buy take a sizable share off the hands of Jimbo if and when Ralph dies. And to throw in another angle, its been reported that Checketts (the Blues owner) is interested in putting a group together for the Rams. If that goes through, ownership will effectively be split between the owners of the Blues and the Avalanche...I wonder how Roger Goodell would feel about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I hear you on that one, its been brought up a million times. But where does Stan Kroenke fit in? He has 40% ownership in the Rams, but also owns the Nuggets and the Avalanche, where the Broncos play. You think the rule only stands for majority ownership, or all invested parties? If that's the case, Jacobs could buy take a sizable share off the hands of Jimbo if and when Ralph dies. And to throw in another angle, its been reported that Checketts (the Blues owner) is interested in putting a group together for the Rams. If that goes through, ownership will effectively be split between the owners of the Blues and the Avalanche...I wonder how Roger Goodell would feel about that. Bernie Miklasz covered a lot of this on his blog Saturday night: Bernie's Extra Points CAN’T ROSENBLOOM AND RODRIGUEZ SELL THEIR 60 PERCENT TO KROENKE? Yes … in fact, he has the right to match any outside offer made for that 60 percent. But there’s a huge obstacle in the way. Kroenke owns the NBA Denver Nuggets and the NHL Colorado Avalanche. He would have to sell them, or the NFL would prohibit him from purchasing control of the Rams. The NFL is firm about its cross-ownership rules. If Kroenke owned an NBA and/or NHL team in St. Louis, then the NFL would allow him to own the Rams, because he wouldn’t be competing against another NFL owner. But the way the NFL sees it, the profits generated by Kroenke in St. Louis as the majority Rams owner could be put to use in Denver, where Kroenke could take the revenue and enhance the Nuggets and Avalanche, who compete with the NFL Broncos for the sports dollar. The NFL doesn’t want that to happen. Some of you may be wondering: well, what about Paul Allen? He owns the NBA team in Portland, and the NFL allowed him to buy the Seattle Seahawks. So what’s the difference? There is no NFL team in Portland, so Allen isn’t using his NBA Trailblazers to compete against a fellow NFL owner in Portland. That’s the difference. Personally, I think it’s a silly rule, but … 8. WOULD KROENKE BE WILLING TO SELL THE NUGGETS AND THE AVALANCHE? Unfortunately, I haven’t spoken to Kroenke in months, so I don’t know what he thinks about all of that. But he certainly enjoys owning the Nuggets and the Avs. And he’s reportedly wary of the stadium issues in St. Louis. 9. WOULD THE NFL BE WILLING TO WAIVE THE CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULE TO ACCOMODATE KROENKE? Possible, but doubtful. I’m told that Kroenke has been networking behind the scenes, to line up support from his fellow NFL owners. One influential NFL owner told me several months ago that the league would be crazy to push Kroenke away, because he has everything that the NFL covets in an owner. I’m told that he has probably 8 or 9 owners firmly on his side — but he needs a lot more than that to get NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to bend the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Distance has nothing to do with it. Market size is everything. Don't plan on having a major sports franchise in Rochester any time soon (not to open the door for that moron lacrosse fan from a few weeks ago). How about NYG/NYJ? Oh wait... You haven't read B.Harami's thread yet on which Bills is the best dressed... The reason I chose BUF and GB is because of the size of their markets. GB and BUF are pretty close. And, they are similar distances from some of the largest cities on the continent. Toronto is the 9th largest commercial market in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The reason I chose BUF and GB is because of the size of their markets. GB and BUF are pretty close. And, they are similar distances from some of the largest cities on the continent. Toronto is the 9th largest commercial market in North America. GB and Buffalo are pretty close???? huhhh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 St. Louis Blues owner steps up to buy Rams. Before you all start cheering for Tom Golisano to buy the Bills, pay some attention to what he and his lapdog Larry Quinn did to the Sabres in two years. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Maybe the Cheatriettes* are interested in moving to Toronto? After all, they almost fled Fagsboro for St. Louis, then Memphis, then Hartford, before Kraft stepped in and rescued the cheaters* for NE*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The reason I chose BUF and GB is because of the size of their markets. GB and BUF are pretty close. And, they are similar distances from some of the largest cities on the continent. Toronto is the 9th largest commercial market in North America. I think that your analogy is a little skewed since: 1. You haven't included Milwaukee, from which the Packers derive much of their fan base. 2. You make the difference between 100 miles (between Buffalo - Toronto) and 200 miles (Green Bay - Chicago) sound like nothing, when in fact, I think it's a pretty decent distance between the two. I would bet that there are a lot more people willing to drive two hours each way to a game (with traffic) than three and a half hours. 3. Even though the population for Toronto and Chicago are similar, I don't think it's safe to assume the same commitment to football. Toronto will always be a hockey town, and they'll have to pull in a lot of fans from Southern Ontario, Hamilton etc... to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Sorry, but the Rogers group doesn't have the money to move a franchise to Toronto. They would have to come up with around $3 billion. They would pay $1 billion for the team, $1+ billion for a stadium, a gigantic relocation fee, and then the conversion from Canadian to US. The NFL doesn't allow corporate ownership, so all this money would have to be borrowed or come out of someone's pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I think that your analogy is a little skewed since:1. You haven't included Milwaukee, from which the Packers derive much of their fan base. 2. You make the difference between 100 miles (between Buffalo - Toronto) and 200 miles (Green Bay - Chicago) sound like nothing, when in fact, I think it's a pretty decent distance between the two. I would bet that there are a lot more people willing to drive two hours each way to a game (with traffic) than three and a half hours. 3. Even though the population for Toronto and Chicago are similar, I don't think it's safe to assume the same commitment to football. Toronto will always be a hockey town, and they'll have to pull in a lot of fans from Southern Ontario, Hamilton etc... to be successful. I drive in from the Utica area so the 3.5 hours makes perfect sense to me. My house to RWS is exactly 199.8 miles. But you are right, I did not factor in, as Alice Cooper calls it Mil-e-wal-kee, or, the great land. btw Milwaukee is about 3x the size of Rochester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I drive in from the Utica area so the 3.5 hours makes perfect sense to me. My house to RWS is exactly 199.8 miles. But you are right, I did not factor in, as Alice Cooper calls it Mil-e-wal-kee, or, the great land. btw Milwaukee is about 3x the size of Rochester. Yeah, I know that some people do make trips of 3- 4 hours and more, and I salute you. I'm just saying I think that the further out you get, it's harder to rely on people coming to the games. I think I'm going to go listen to "Love it to Death". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I hear ya, Lori. But after seeing how many non-Bills fans there are in TO, I'm not sure RW would lose much of his S. Ontario fan base. Fans in that region have been fans for generations in many cases. I guess I'm saying that he would 'gain' far fewer new fans in TO than he would 'lose' in S. Ontario if a team were located in Toronto. GO BILLS!!! The number of canadians coming to Bills games is vastly overstated here. Go to see them play the Steelers or the Browns--there are for more fans from Pittsburgh and Cleveland at our home games than are from canada. The interest in the Bills in Toronto is miniscule, if the reaction to their "home" game against the Fins is any indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The number of canadians coming to Bills games is vastly overstated here. Go to see them play the Steelers or the Browns--there are for more fans from Pittsburgh and Cleveland at our home games than are from canada. The interest in the Bills in Toronto is miniscule, if the reaction to their "home" game against the Fins is any indication. You're probably right - they would probably be more interested in having your Patriettes* move to Toronto... link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts