Two things: Trent Edwards back for the Bills AND tidbit from Curly - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Jackson 2*** · 12-18-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xmarkd400x

Would you rather have

1) A 10 year career where you made ~50 million dollars, but only made the playoffs a handful of times, never won a SB (Say, Junior Seau).

2) Or, would you rather a 3 year career where you were a contributor on an SB winning team, but only made ~4 million dollars.

Now, remember some things.
- You pretty much have no skills aside from football (You can't go back to the office job you are supposed to be doing while reading this post)
- You will have made 95% of the money you will make in your life by the time you are 28. (4M = 100k/yr for 40 years. Essentially the same as a well paid professional; comfortable life, but not extravagant)

Personally, I'd choose the money. I think a lot of players play for the paycheck and try to not get hurt so they can earn more money. As a person, I don't have a problem with that. As a fan, I see 31 other teams they can be on.

I also believe that when Calhoun was inducted into the Hall of Fame, in excess of 50 of his former UConn players attended the ceremony. Pretty imprerssive.

Peekaboo · 12-18-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_usagisan

But when that happens, it's sad to say, it's probably going to be the Toronto Bills full-time rather than part-time. So the choice for Bills fans is:

A) Losing team in Bufallo

B) A team with potential in another country

Nah, the reception the Bills got from the fans there wasn't too good. Not to mention there were more Carp fans than Bills fans. Plus, Jim Kelly has a group of investors lined up to buy the team along with himself. As a matter of fact, word on the street is that Tom Galisano, the current owner of the Buffalo Sabres is trying to sell the team so he can buy the Bills. The reason for that is per NFL rules, you cannot own controlling interest in two professional franchises in the same city. That would suck if the Sabres got moved. Which raises the question, if he can't have controlling interest, why not just own 49% of the team? A lot of different options and variables to consider. Time will tell what happens.

upstater1 · 12-18-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_usagisan

But when that happens, it's sad to say, it's probably going to be the Toronto Bills full-time rather than part-time. So the choice for Bills fans is:

A) Losing team in Bufallo

B) A team with potential in another country

Buffalo fans would not root for the Toronto Bills. That much has been established. In Canada, there's a lot of worry that a NFL team would hurt the CFL badly.

It also remains to be seen if there are areas out there that could do better than Buffalo in terms of becoming a solidly-financed franchise.

The Los Angeles area is the only one, but you can bet the owners are saving LA for a new franchise so they can split the franchise fees.

The Bills-Dolphins game was not the financial success that the Toronto people had hoped for. It wasn't even a sellout in a 50k stadium. Plus, the game's biggest promoter, Mr. Rogers of Rogers Cable, just passed away.

I'm trying hard to think of possible areas for Buffalo to move to, but I'm drawing a blank. Oklahoma City? Portland, Oregon? I honestly can't think of many places.

The NFL has reached saturation levels in the US nd that's why you see the London game.

upstater1 · 12-18-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peekaboo

Nah, the reception the Bills got from the fans there wasn't too good. Not to mention there were more Carp fans than Bills fans. Plus, Jim Kelly has a group of investors lined up to buy the team along with himself. As a matter of fact, word on the street is that Tom Galisano, the current owner of the Buffalo Sabres is trying to sell the team so he can buy the Bills. The reason for that is per NFL rules, you cannot own controlling interest in two professional franchises in the same city. That would suck if the Sabres got moved. Which raises the question, if he can't have controlling interest, why not just own 49% of the team? A lot of different options and variables to consider. Time will tell what happens.

Because he doesn't have the money to own the Bills and the Sabres.

Peekaboo · 12-18-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

Because he doesn't have the money to own the Bills and the Sabres.

Granted, the Sabres are important to Buffalo but not as important as the Bills. You've probably heard this before but if you beat the Bills, you beat the city. God knows what happens if the Bills move.

mike_usagisan · 12-18-2008, 12:31 PM

I don't think new franchises are likely because the NFL likes the way the divisions are so evenly stacked with four teams a piece. Adding eight franchises would be waaay too hard. I think you're likely to see some movement from places like Bufallo or Cincy in the near future.

And unfortunately, Bufallo and Cincy don't have the means to bring in the big investors that the owners love to build skyboxes for.

L.A. seems like the location for the first move. Though Toronto doesn't root for the Bills, if they created a new name, like the Ravens, I could see it working. Or at least the NFL might see it that way.

upstater1 · 12-18-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_usagisan

I don't think new franchises are likely because the NFL likes the way the divisions are so evenly stacked with four teams a piece. Adding eight franchises would be waaay too hard. I think you're likely to see some movement from places like Bufallo or Cincy in the near future.

And unfortunately, Bufallo and Cincy don't have the means to bring in the big investors that the owners love to build skyboxes for.

L.A. seems like the location for the first move. Though Toronto doesn't root for the Bills, if they created a new name, like the Ravens, I could see it working. Or at least the NFL might see it that way.

New price for an NFL franchise in LA: $1.5 billion.

Price for contracting a franchise like the Jaguars: $800 million.

I seriously doubt the owners are going to leave $700 million on th table. I bet you they won't. Around Buffalo, they are saying that a local buyer's group could spend up to $750 million on the team. The team that moves to LA will have to figure out how to pay off the other owners, because the owners will want a big cut of that fee.

spacecrime · 12-18-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

Shaughnessy said that most NFL players would not want to play for Tom Coughlin. Bill Belichick came in second on the dreaded coach list.

What can we conclude? Most NFL players do not care about winning.

Isn't that obvious?

Not to me, it isn't. What is obvious to me is that Shaughness is wrong.

Anyway, Shaughnessy's just plagiarizing Tom Jackson's original premise from way back in 2003.

upstater1 · 12-18-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecrime

Not to me, it isn't. What is obvious to me is that Shaughness is wrong.

Anyway, Shaughnessy's just plagiarizing Tom Jackson's original premise from way back in 2003.

My fault. Shaughnessy is citing a poll that was taken this week of all NFL players.