PushthePile Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 HAHAHAHAHAHA glad im not the only one that thinks senator is completely full of sh*t +100000 Completely full of sh*t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The NFL wants out of Buffalo in the worst way, so I dont buy the notion that they disdain movement. Jerry Jones and others are fighting to get the team out. If it means more money for them, they'll have no issue with a move. Dont for a second think that "NFL Rules or docrtrine" will get in the way of a sale that ends in a move. The Bills do OK money-wise, but they would do far better just about anywhere else. This is about money and nothing else. If they thought they could squeeze another $100 million out of a franchise by letting it move, they would take Hitler in a second. Sure Buffalo interests will have a shot. But when it gets down to brass tacks, you better believe that money is gonna talk loud and clear and that all of the other "stuff" is going to take a back seat. Dont misunderstand me. I want the team to stay even though I dont live there anymore. But you need to be realistic about what the chances are of the team staying. I put the odds at about 4:1 against. Fact or your opinion? If it is fact, can you state them here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtl3302 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 According to Forbes last year, the Bills are worth $909 million. Who is this Jim Kelly group that's being referred to? I dont think Kelly knows people with more than $90 million, let alone $909 million. Golisano cant afford the team either without some major backing. That major backer is not going to want the team in Buffalo. Two teams are up for moving..Buffalo and Jax. Two cities are first on he list to get a team...So Cal and San Antonio. There is no corporate base in Buffalo to support a $909 million investment. It's not about the fans selling out the stadium and it's not about the TV ratings. It's about corporations that can afford big ticket boxes and advertising. Rich Products, Labatt, and Sahlen's wont cut it. Considering that GM is now the largest employer in the area, we're screwed. The team is as is good as gone. It certainly left the playing field years ago. Thought Golisano was a billionaire from naples,fla! If he wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo, why wouldn't his investor buddies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 99% of what is offered on this board is speculative. take my comments as you will. just google "jerry jones, revenue sharing" and you'll see where i'm coming from. Fact or your opinion? If it is fact, can you state them here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 maybe because Golisano cares about the area, but his other investors do not. personally, i dont think that tom is a serious candidate for the team. he cant buy it alone and i dont think he'll find enough buffalo-loving investors to drop over $900 million on the area. it's a really lousy investment. take your fan hat off and put your money hat on. would you spend $900 million on this team (and keep it in bflo) with no hope of ever recouping your money? NFL franchises are not going to double in value in our lifetimes. Thought Golisano was a billionaire from naples,fla! If he wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo, why wouldn't his investor buddies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 WEO, Don't count on it. Toronto has a very legitimate argument that they are already part of the market. Where you would draw the market boundaries is much more restrictive than how the Rogers group would draw the boundaries. Since the Bills will have played games in Toronto for a number of years their argument is very reasonable. Owners such as Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder would love having the team moved to a bigger market and out of a small western NY market. Also having a new owner who doesn't whine about more revenue sharing from the weatlhier franchises would be a bonus for the owners. You stated Ralph owes nothing to anyone. That is excactly what the aged owner believes. He made his millions because he is a business genius. The county built a stadium for him and remodeled it without a nickel coming out of his pockets because they love him so much. The fans have supported the Bills through thick and thin (mostly thin) because he is such a benevolent person. A speical HOF building should be built for benevolent and generous owners such as Art Modell, Robert Irsay and Ralph Wilson. They would have a special wing called the arsehole wing. You should be very confident that high priced tickets would be required to enter their wing. That is how genius business owners would want things done. Whoa, John. That was "Doc", not me. I would never post under such a lame tag. But he is right--any move will come with a huge fee for the owner--Ralph has always known this, hence all prior rumors of all the times Ralph "could have moved" are pure nonsense. Even Toronto would cost the owner and he would need to build a new football stadium as the Skydome is too small and ratty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 99% of what is offered on this board is speculative. take my comments as you will. just google "jerry jones, revenue sharing" and you'll see where i'm coming from. My speculation is that Toronto will get an NFL team LONG BEFORE LA or San Antonio. MUCH bigger market than San Antonio, LARGEST City in Canada, The NFL wants to go International, Mexico City & London may get a team before LA or San Antonio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 My speculation is that Toronto will get an NFL team LONG BEFORE LA or San Antonio. MUCH bigger market than San Antonio, LARGEST City in Canada, The NFL wants to go International, Mexico City & London may get a team before LA or San Antonio. Toronto possibly. London, unlikely. Just got back from there yesterday and those people don't really give a sh**t about real football. Whereas the ticker on ESPN here will have "NFL....NCAAF.....MLB....NHL.....NBA" scrolling by, on Sky Sports it's: "Premiere League.....World Cup..........Darts.......Snooker........Netball". I kid you not. Pathetic. Mexico City, forget it. Dirtiest city in the hemisphere. No player will ever want to go there. Who would own the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Toronto possibly. London, unlikely. Just got back from there yesterday and those people don't really give a sh**t about real football. Whereas the ticker on ESPN here will have "NFL....NCAAF.....MLB....NHL.....NBA" scrolling by, on Sky Sports it's: "Premiere League.....World Cup..........Darts.......Snooker........Netball". I kid you not. Pathetic. Mexico City, forget it. Dirtiest city in the hemisphere. No player will ever want to go there. Who would own the team? Some large Drug Cartel would own the Mexican Banditos. They may not do well in free agency. What the Hell is Netball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not a lot being said about San Antonio. I'm not sold on LA. Chicken and egg thing. They need a stadium before they can have a team, and they need a team in order to get funding for a stadium. Long shot IMO. I think San Antonio is the front-runner. TO a close second. City officials are said to be attempting to lure the National Football League permanently to San Antonio and have also said that a strong showing at the Alamodome for the three local Saints games was vital to showing that San Antonio can support an NFL franchise. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue stated San Antonio was successful in hosting the team, and that the city would be on the short list for any future NFL expansions. The city has also hosted the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers preseason camps in the past, and they have signed a contract with the Cowboys in which the Cowboys will practice in San Antonio through 2011.[25] Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has acknowledged his support for the city's efforts to become home to an NFL franchise.[26] Although it is the second largest city in the United States without an NFL team (after Los Angeles), San Antonio's smaller metropolitan population has so far contributed to its lack of landing an NFL, MLB, or NHL team. I was at one of those games in 2005, and I didn't consider the Alamodome an acceptable NFL venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I was at one of those games in 2005, and I didn't consider the Alamodome an acceptable NFL venue.Ageed, it's a big tin can with bad lighting, it would automatically become one of the bottom venues in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The one question i keep asking my self about the Bills moving to L.A. is how it will affect divisional alignment. I dont think the rest of the division wants to fly to the other side of the country anymore than they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The NFL does not seem to have a problem with it, according to Goodell. Maybe it's one of those easily upgradeable stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarrytown Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Some large Drug Cartel would own the Mexican Banditos. They may not do well in free agency. What the Hell is Netball? Netball is a global sport! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball Look what we are missing.... http://www.worldnetballseries.com/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 After reading the whole thread and listening to Roger Goodell on the NFL Network, I think Jacksonville is the clear choice for moving to LA, not Buffalo. Plus, the ownership situation is prime for it. Weaver is rumored to want to sell the Jags and that can be done. In Buffalo, the NFL has to wait for the owner to die and it has an estate to deal with. I also think the Rams could return to LA and that would be the best move for that market because the fans bonded with the Rams, even though they didn't attend the games. Further, Al Davis will sue the NFL for that market because he thinks he owns the LA market and he wants a stadium which he has never gotten. So the most logical thing would be to build the stadium and return the Rams to LA, along with the Raiders. Another wildcard would be the Chargers because they were born in LA. If the NFL were to try and move the Bills and Jags to LA and not change the uniforms, they are doomed to fail, quicker than the new stadium can be built (3-4 years). Not changing the uniforms will kill the team. LA people won't root for a team called the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 After reading the whole thread and listening to Roger Goodell on the NFL Network, I think Jacksonville is the clear choice for moving to LA, not Buffalo. Plus, the ownership situation is prime for it. Weaver is rumored to want to sell the Jags and that can be done. In Buffalo, the NFL has to wait for the owner to die and it has an estate to deal with. I also think the Rams could return to LA and that would be the best move for that market because the fans bonded with the Rams, even though they didn't attend the games. Further, Al Davis will sue the NFL for that market because he thinks he owns the LA market and he wants a stadium which he has never gotten. So the most logical thing would be to build the stadium and return the Rams to LA, along with the Raiders. Another wildcard would be the Chargers because they were born in LA. If the NFL were to try and move the Bills and Jags to LA and not change the uniforms, they are doomed to fail, quicker than the new stadium can be built (3-4 years). Not changing the uniforms will kill the team. LA people won't root for a team called the Bills. They could rename the Rams the LA Crips & the Raiders the LA Bloods. Red & blue uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 So the most logical thing would be to build the stadium and return the Rams to LA, along with the Raiders. Another wildcard would be the Chargers because they were born in LA. the most logical thing is for the city which couldn't successfully support a single franchise to get 2? I think you're confusing utter nonsense with logic again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 After reading the whole thread and listening to Roger Goodell on the NFL Network, I think Jacksonville is the clear choice for moving to LA, not Buffalo. Plus, the ownership situation is prime for it. Weaver is rumored to want to sell the Jags and that can be done. In Buffalo, the NFL has to wait for the owner to die and it has an estate to deal with. I also think the Rams could return to LA and that would be the best move for that market because the fans bonded with the Rams, even though they didn't attend the games. Further, Al Davis will sue the NFL for that market because he thinks he owns the LA market and he wants a stadium which he has never gotten. So the most logical thing would be to build the stadium and return the Rams to LA, along with the Raiders. Another wildcard would be the Chargers because they were born in LA. If the NFL were to try and move the Bills and Jags to LA and not change the uniforms, they are doomed to fail, quicker than the new stadium can be built (3-4 years). Not changing the uniforms will kill the team. LA people won't root for a team called the Bills. So you think the NFL will have two teams in LA? How did that work out last time? Who's buying those tickets? Why would it be better for an owner to be taroing over huge areas of seating in LA as opposed to Jax. How much more do you think the networks will pay the league just because LA (who's watching the games on TV?) has a team? No stadium, no team in LA. If, by some miracle, a stadium (for real) is to be built, the only logical move will be Jax, which has been an embarrassment for the league for several years. FLBILLFAN: Netball is a goofy British corruption of basketball. It is really amazing to see it. You say "basketball already exists--why did they invent this game?". It is typical of the European mindset. They simply know nothing about sports. It's sad, really--all they have is soccer, a little kids game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 After reading the whole thread and listening to Roger Goodell on the NFL Network, I think Jacksonville is the clear choice for moving to LA, not Buffalo. Plus, the ownership situation is prime for it. Weaver is rumored to want to sell the Jags and that can be done. In Buffalo, the NFL has to wait for the owner to die and it has an estate to deal with. I also think the Rams could return to LA and that would be the best move for that market because the fans bonded with the Rams, even though they didn't attend the games. Further, Al Davis will sue the NFL for that market because he thinks he owns the LA market and he wants a stadium which he has never gotten. So the most logical thing would be to build the stadium and return the Rams to LA, along with the Raiders. Another wildcard would be the Chargers because they were born in LA. If the NFL were to try and move the Bills and Jags to LA and not change the uniforms, they are doomed to fail, quicker than the new stadium can be built (3-4 years). Not changing the uniforms will kill the team. LA people won't root for a team called the Bills. Angelenos root for a team named the Lakers (originally from the land of 10,000 lakes, Minnesota) despite the fact that LA has no lakes. And they root for a baseball team named after the common Brooklyn activity of dodging streetcars/trolleys/IRT trains despite having a notoriously pathetic mass transit system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtl3302 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 maybe because Golisano cares about the area, but his other investors do not. personally, i dont think that tom is a serious candidate for the team. he cant buy it alone and i dont think he'll find enough buffalo-loving investors to drop over $900 million on the area. it's a really lousy investment. take your fan hat off and put your money hat on. would you spend $900 million on this team (and keep it in bflo) with no hope of ever recouping your money? NFL franchises are not going to double in value in our lifetimes. How do you know i'm a fan? Are you and Mr.Golisano (Tom) friends? And i wouldn't have to double my money to make it a good investment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts