OT: The Buffalo Bills on borrowed time in western NY and the AFC East?

[QuiGon]

Do you think that team is Jacksonville? I just can't see KC moving, and isn't Minnesota building a new football-only stadium for the Vikings?

KC is in a similar state as the Bills... once the patriarch of the Chiefs died, the ties to the region were weakened... KC is another team that wanted new renovations (and the league offered KC a Super Bowl if the city paid for it) but those renovation were turned down.

The league should have moved the Saints to LA; NO is a geologically doomed city.

I honestly believe this could have happened if it weren't for Hurricane Katrina. And I still wouldn't rule it out 100%. The Superdome is now one of the oldest stadiums in the league. Anyone but me notice how New Orleans has now gone longer than ever without a Super Bowl - and none on the horizon..?

If I could decide what team to move, it would be the dolts. Phonyindoorturf + hayseeds.

Well, they are finishing a new building to begin play in 2008. So they aren't going anywhere other than across the street.

I hope the Bills don't move, but if they do, then Baltimore would be the logical replacement.

Or they could just do what they did in the 90's and maintain everyone in the same division no matter how geographically incorrect it may have been... if you can have St. Louis, NO and Atlanta all being in the NFC "West", and AZ and Dallas in the "East" then you can have the Los Angeles Bills in the East.

 

[QuiGon]

Honestly, I think that the league is looking at Las Vegas as a potential place for a football team.

That will never happen in our lifetime. This is the league that refuses to run Vegas.com advertisements during their games.

They put a team in Phoenix because it and Tempe were the fastest growing areas in the country. I am not sure if Texas could support another team in either Austin or San Antonio. But, other than that, you'd be hard pressed, I feel, to find a place to put a football team.

I don't think there's much desire on the part of the league to change the status quo - with one exception. They want someone to go to L.A. I have mentioned a few possibilities, and one other dark horse candidate could be the 49ers. I thought they had a done-deal in Santa Clara, but it turns out that they are still just "exploring locales"... there was an interesting article on that issue linked from PFT.com...

 

[QuiGon]

If you think that the Buffalo fans aren't willing to shell out the money, your fooling yourself. They have a waiting list for season tickets just like the Pats do.

No, they don't. At least they didn't as of last year, and I doubt they have generated one since then...

 

[captain stone]

Or they could just do what they did in the 90's and maintain everyone in the same division no matter how geographically incorrect it may have been... if you can have St. Louis, NO and Atlanta all being in the NFC "West", and AZ and Dallas in the "East" then you can have the Los Angeles Bills in the East.

I remember those divisions that made no geographic sense whatsoever. The league finally got it right in 2002, after 35 years, though Dallas still shouldn't be in the East.

P.S.: I dig the sig.

 

[Rob0729]

Yeah, nice way to ignore the rest of the paragraph there chumly. Corporations CAN and DO shell out money for luxury boxes NOT in venues NOT where their corportate HQs are located all the time. Why? Many times they can make it a tax right off through entertainment expenses.

Now, Buffalo doesn't need 86 luxury boxes. They need to do what Kraft did. Kraft went out and found out what the best number would be for seats in his stadium and built it. He probably should have enclosed the one end zone for the extra 3K seats, but that is just my opinion. However, Ralph Wilson Stadium can and has been full. And Wilson has and can finance a new stadium if he wanted to. Hell, he was one of the ones complaining about Kraft using the NFL to finance some of the money, yet Wilson also forgets that Kraft is paying interest on that money back to the NFL coffers. Money that Wilson is reaping the rewards on.

Again, its a matter of how you market to the corporations. You cut them deals for the first couple of years on a 10 year deal and then the last few years are at a higher rate to compensate for the change in time and such. But Wilson has neither built a new stadium nor marketed his team properly. And he reaps the rewards of other teams hard work.

Indy will be coming into a windfall soon. Especially with the sweetheart deal they got on their stadium. Cincinnati could do the same, if they so chose. Its all about putting your ego behind making money. Ralph Wilson hasn't been able to do it and its got people not taking him seriously because its just BS. Especially with the money that Buffalo threw around this season with FA bonuses. You may want to look into how much they spent. It will surprise you.

Well, if you are going to throw out insults, I've got no use for discussing this any further for you. I didn't even read your entire post (just like I stopped reading this post after the chumly crack) because you were addressing someone else's post. I just saw my name and read that sentence and responded accordingly.

If you want to discuss issues without the attitude, I am more than happy to debate with you. Otherwise, we are done.

 

[upstater1]

It is exactly how it works. Bonus money does get amortized over the life of the contract, but you can't pay someone a huge signing bonus and have the money be taken out out of your bank account over the life of the contract.

Bob Kraft can't give Adalius Thomas a $12 million signing bonus paid out in March and then tell his bank that they can only deduct $3 million from his bank account this year because that is all that counts against the cap.

The CBA has absolutely nothing to do with this. If you give a large signing bonus up front, you are responsible for that money. It has nothing to do with the cap, it is real dollars that is paid out. For cap purposes, it is reconized over the life of the contract, but all the money is paid out immediately.

This CBA uses basic accounting principles for bonuses. If your company buys you a computer and they pay $1,000. They only recognize $200 of that cost in this year's taxes and $200 every year until the $1,000 is realized. Unless the company financed it, they still pay 100% up front although the government looks at it as they bought it in five pieces over five years.

It doesn't matter in the end. The money that comes out can't be more than the cap.

Here's your proof: the Bills spent more on upfront bonuses than the Patriots. If bonuses were so tied to revenues, that wouldn't have happened. If I were a Bills fan, I wouldn't be worried abot my team's ability to give up front bonuses. I'd be more worried about the salary cap blowing up in the future, because that was what was on the table a year ago.

 

[upstater1]

Again, teams like the Redskins lure talent with huge signing bonuses with a lot of up front money. They give the players long term deals to minimize the cap hit, but they pay a lot of real money up front. Asante Samuel wants something like $80 million over 10 years. If he was a free agent, a rich guy like Daniel Snyder could offer Samuel a 10 year $80 million contract with a $30 million signing bonus to make sure no one could beat his price (yes, I know I am exaggerating to prove a point). Snyder is one of a handful of owners who would could easily generate $30 million up front for a single player like that. From a cap standpoint, It wouldn't have much different cap ramification per year than a contract with a $5 million signing bonus if it is structured a certain way.

Have you followed the Bills lately? Did you just see the huge free agent spending spree they went on with upfront money?

Just a bit. The Pats' average ticket is $90.89 (highest in the NFL) and the Bills' average ticket is 53.81 (lowest in the NFL). That is about a $37 difference. The Bills have cheap seats because they can't fill the stands.

What are you talking about? They DO fill the stands. I'm convinced you are not in command of the facts. The Bills have sold out Ralph Wilson Stadium for 15 straight years up until last December when half their home games were scheduled in the last quarter of the season. They have no trouble filling Ralph Wilson Stadium. How many times do I have to say this? The Bills are TOP 10 in attendance. Do you think Portland will be top 10?

Kodak's headquarters in Rochester which is a little under 100 miles away. Buffalo is not nearly the business center as most other NFL cities.

I work in Rochester. It's less than 60 miles away!!! It takes me 55 minutes to go door to door driving 73 mph on a 65 mph speed limit! There is signage and sponsoring of Rochester companies inside the stadium!! Buffalo's training camp is a St. John's Fisher, in Rochester!

I'm sorry, but Buffalo is a small market no matter how you slice it. No one other than you are disputing that.

Of course it is, no one is disputing that. What I'm saying is there is no better/bigger alternative. Go look at Portland or San Antonio. Are they bigger than 3 million. Do they have a history?

The Bills have had problems selling out home games for over a decade.

You're wrong again. Man, what can I tell you? The Bills are on TV here every weekend. That wouldn't happen if they had trouble selling out. Are you aware of the NFL's blackout rule? The stadium is 20% bigger than Gillette, and the games are NOT blacked out. You're dealing from a false set of assumptions.

You cannot compare hockey to football. What does the Sabre's hockey rink hold? Nineteen thousand seats? Do you think the Sabres could sell out Ralph Wilson Stadium

I was pointing out that the money is here. The Sabres are making a ton of money. Sabres fans shell out twice as much money as Bills fans. What's the difference? Do you think hockey is more popular than football in this region. No, it's not. The difference is that the Sabres are competitive, and the Bills aren't. If the Bills ever had a competitive team, they could name their price for the tickets. It's that simple. Ralph really only has himself to blame.

 

[upstater1]

1. The Bills make money NOW, just not as much as other teams.
2. They wouldn't have trouble selling out if they had a winning team. They haven't been competitive since 2002.
3. If any existing franchise should move it should be Jacksonville, that was a bad choice to begin with. FL shouldn't have 3 franchises.
4. The Bills marketing would be much better if they included the Toronto area. How far is Buffalo from Toronto? I bet its less than 150miles
5. Buffalo's major problems have nothing to do with the football part of the organization, and more to do with the actual running of the franchise and hard work it takes to market the team.

+1, completely agreed. Although I do think Buffalo's small market will hurt them financially if the Salary Cap heads to $150 million within the next 5 years. Then Rob's argument will make more sense. But on the other hand, I think a lot of small franchises will be hurting if the cap heads that high. The Bills could theoretically spend $150 million right now, but that's the extent of their gross revenues. There would be nothing left for the owner's profits. And if the next owner is leveraged highly, he won't be spending that much.

Personally, I believe that a competitive Buffalo team can bring in more revs through much higher ticket prices (the Sabres proved this). They also need to sell the stadium naming rights.

 

[upstater1]

In 2006, Buffalo was dead last in stadium capacity with an average of 84.5% of the tickets per game sold. In 2005, they were 28th with 89.9% of the tickets sold. In 2004, they were 28th again with 89.7%. In 2003, they had a good year with 91.2% being still 28th in the league in attendance. In 2002 with all the hype with Bledsoe, they were 29th in the league with 85.6% capacity (also eventhough they have about 15,000 more seats they only averaged 30 more people per game in the stands than the Pats had that year).

In contrast, the Pats have had over 100% capacity (SRO tickets count as the overage) during the whole period. I really don't think the Pats and Bills fan base is very comparable as far as attending the game at all.

There is a certain segment of the Bills fans that would pay more to go to the game, but there is a whole bunch who won't. Besides, it is a catch 22. Wilson raises the ticket price and he risks selling out even fewer games which means more local blackouts and TV revenue is lost and the fan base dwindles.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?sort=home_perc&year=2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?sort=home_perc&year=2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?sort=home_perc&year=2004

28th in the league in attendance???!! You're looking at capacity!! They SELL OUT every freakin' game! They are top 10 in attendance. It's backward to measure attendance by percentage of capacity, especially when the stadium is regularly cordoned off so they don't have to sell the ACTUAL capacity which is 80,000 seats. Have you ever been to a Bills game? Have you ever been inside the stadium?

Those ESPN stats are funky because they are taking actual seats sold and measuring them against the stadium's footprint. Whereas for NFL sell out purposes, the stadium only holds 70,000 seats.

 

[upstater1]

Considering that Wilson could have financed a new stadium at any time over the last 30 years and the City of Orchard Park would have given him a break on the taxes, there is no excuse for him to NOT have built a new stadium. And he already has enough room to build the new stadium next to the old one and not put a dent in the parking.

Wilson has the money to get a new stadium built and if he wasn't such an egotistical snob, he'd work to get naming rights on the stadium.

OH, and to Rob, just because a place doesn't have its corporate headquarters in a particular city, doesn't mean they won't get the naming rights.

A perfect example is the new Lucas Oil Stadium for the Colts. Their corporate HQ is in Corona, CA. Or the Staples Center. Their corporate HQ is in Framingham, MA.

So, if companies are willing to put naming rights on facilities not even CLOSE to the corporate HQ, why wouldn't they pay for luxury boxes near major facilities? The answer is they WOULD pay. And many do.

He spent tens of millions redoing the stadium within the last 10 years. It's a nice stadium. They do have luxury boxes, but there's no point in building a new stadium with a ton more luxury boxes when you don't have that many big corporations up here. You have more than enough to fill the luxury boxes. It would be counterproductive to build a new stadium with say, double the amount of boxes, when you wouldn't be able to fill them. The luxury boxes that are there now ring the entire stadium, and they are filled.

 

[upstater1]

Jacksonville gets around league attendance metrics and blackout rules by tarping over seats in their stadium. Do the Bills do the same?

Yes. It's an 80,000 seat stadium. I believe the official sellout number is right around 70,000. As part of this agreement, they can't sell OVER 70,000 tickets even when a game is in high demand (the Patriots game, for instance).

 

[upstater1]

What is the average price of a Colt ticket and a Bills ticket? If it cost as much to go to a Colts' game as it does a Bills game, would the attendance be higher in the RCA Dome.

Again, would the Bills be middle of the pack in attendance if they were middle of the pack in ticket price. You nor I can answer that. Considering part of their attendance is from Canada where their dollar is considerably less than the US dollar, it might be difficult.

One, the Canadian dollar is not considerably less than the American. It's right on par, 100%. Second, when you're looking at average ticket price, you have to take into account all the extra seats, because that dilutes the price of tickets.

Greenwich, Ct. is the richest town in the state. But it doesn't have the highest property values. Why? It's bigger than some of the small towns, and the cheap homes dilute the average price of property. But let me tell you, you won't find bigger or better homes in the state than you'll find in Greenwich.

 

[upstater1]

Ultimately it will come down to:

1. The stadium lease. Can't breach the current contract, but the new city will also need a favorable lease, and so far that hasn't happened in LA.

2. Ralph Wilson's will. It may prohibit a sale to an out-of-state buyer, or it may require a sale to the highest bid. Who knows?

and

3. Roger Goodell

Most of the other stuff doesn't matter. Yes, there are some great local buyers. But if someone in LA pays $200M more than the local buyer, it doesn't matter....unless Goodell takes a stand that supports a non-move. That would be bad for overall TV ratings, so I wouldn't bet on it. I think the initial premise of the thread is solid - the Bills will move. Money talks, and there's lots more of it in LA.

I completely agree that they'll move if the NFL finds a better home. A lot of us are arguing that, 1., there aren't any better homes out there other than LA. 2., the Bills are not the franchise that will be moved first, because they have a better base than some of the others.

If the franchise is valued at a much higher price than say, Golisano is willing to pay, then the NFL will push that sale toward the higher bidder. There is no hometown discount. But the new owner who will have to be leveraged at a much higher price than Wilson's current price ($650 mill, something say Golisano could afford) would have to make sure he could make a go of it in, say, Portland. That's a huge risk to take with $850 million dollars, don't you agree?

 

[upstater1]

No, it does not.

It means that the average of all teams is $167 million gross. The pats gross could be $250 mil and the Bills gross could be $101 mil.

All teams spend to the same cap, but all teams have different gross incomes.

It is very conceivable that Wilson has very little or even a negative balance after expenses.

Also, the poster was talking about cash flow, which is different from cap. A $20 mil bonus may be spread over five years for the cap, but the team writes out a check for $20 mil as soon as the contract is signed and approved by the league. Some teams do not have the cash on hand to do that, which limits their bonuses.

I'm not defending Wilson. He is a dope who refuses to maximize revenues.

But to say that each team has $67 mil after spending to the cap is just wrong.

Just as an FYI, the Bills are doing well and making money and doling out big bonuses under the current system.

The complaint was with the new CBA including all sorts of residual funding which the bills don't have, and that will send the salary cap skyrocketing. At that point, the Bills wouldn't be able to compete, even if they sold stadium name rights, etc.

 

[upstater1]

I went on a road trip to Buffalo for last years Pat's game, it wasn't "massive", hell it reminded me of the old Foxboro Stadium. We got End Zone seats (5 rows up, I could hear the cheerleaders pom-poms), from Stub Hub, face value on the ticket was $48, so I don't know why you think you have to pay over $55.

The old Foxboro had 80,000 seats? That's how many seats there are in Ralph Wilson stadium.

Well, I paid $55 through ticket master.

 

[upstater1]

Sorry, but I am having a hard time buying this considering the fact that the Jets were begging the city and state of NY to take them back, the NFL offered NY a Super Bowl, and NY kicked them to the curb. But the same state that wouldn't take the Jets and a Super Bowl is going to bend over backwards to keep the Bills..? Don't make me laugh...

So you haven't been paying attention to Schumer's threats. That's not my fault, is it? Just because New Yorkers aren't dumb enough to cede a huge swath of prime land in one of the most expensive spots on earth, in order to build a billion dollar tax payer boondoggle, doesn't mean the state kicked the Jets to the curb. I'm sure the state is very willing to accomodate the Jets on the site of the old World's Fairgrounds in Queens.

By the way, part of that project to build a domed staidum on the West Side was talk of additional moneyt o build a domed stadium in downtown Buffalo. Which shows you how this state operates (god knows I hate the way it does business). If you're going to spread some sugar downstate, you better spread it upstate too.

Here's a link. This basically repeats what I've already said. Schumer has threatened the NFL.

http://www.wgr550.com/bills/fullstory.php?id=1875

Your homerism does nothing to change the fact that the NFL wants a team in LA more than they want a team in Buffalo. If the Bills show any interest in moving west, Commissioner Goodell himself will help pack up the trucks.[/QUOTE]

 

[upstater1]

Your homerism does nothing to change the fact that the NFL wants a team in LA more than they want a team in Buffalo. If the Bills show any interest in moving west, Commissioner Goodell himself will help pack up the trucks.

This is a complete strawman argument. Who said Buffalo is up against LA? And are you not aware that many owners want a new franchise in LA? I'll let you do the thinking as to why they prefer putting a new team there rather than moving Buffalo.

 

[Rob0729]

Have you followed the Bills lately? Did you just see the huge free agent spending spree they went on with upfront money?

They had to cut, traded, or refused to resign four or five starters (Clements, Fletcher, McGahee, and Spikes) to make deals. Besides, Langston Walker got a $5 million bonus and Derrick Dockery is getting $18 million over his first three years. That is big money for unaccomplished players, but not huge money in this market. You are confusing them overpaying for players and them overpaying for marquee players.

What are you talking about? They DO fill the stands. I'm convinced you are not in command of the facts. The Bills have sold out Ralph Wilson Stadium for 15 straight years up until last December when half their home games were scheduled in the last quarter of the season. They have no trouble filling Ralph Wilson Stadium. How many times do I have to say this? The Bills are TOP 10 in attendance. Do you think Portland will be top 10?

If you mean sell out only being just under 90% full on average per game, yes they have sold out. Just because the Bills sell out a game or two a year doesn't mean they sell out every game. I posted the facts. They average about 89-90% of capacity per game virtually every year. That isn't selling out.

You're wrong again. Man, what can I tell you. The Bills are on TV here every weekend. That wouldn't happen if they had trouble selling out. Are you aware of the NFL's blackout rule? The stadium is 20% bigger than Gillette, and the games are NOT blacked out. You're dealing from a false set of assumptions.

I don't deal with assumptions. I deal with facts. I posted facts that shows they do not sell out every game. They might buy all the excess tickets to avoid the blackout though:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attend...perc&year=2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attend...perc&year=2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attend...perc&year=2004

I was pointing out that the money is here. The Sabres are making a ton of money. Sabres fans shell out twice as much money as Bills fans. What's the difference? Do you think hockey is more popular than football in this region. No, it's not. The difference is that the Sabres are competitive, and the Bills aren't. If the Bills ever had a competitive team, they could name their price for the tickets. It's that simple. Ralph really only has himself to blame.

Hockey and football are two different sports. Hockey doesn't have a fraction the size of the audience. The most successful NHL team doesn't have nearly the fan base of the least successful NFL team. If the Bills had the popularity of the Sabre, they would go under.

 

[QuiGon]

So you haven't been paying attention to Schumer's threats.

No, I just recognize his threats as little more than political driver meant to win brownie points with the locals back home...

That's not my fault, is it? Just because New Yorkers aren't dumb enough to cede a huge swath of prime land in one of the most expensive spots on earth, in order to build a billion dollar tax payer boondoggle, doesn't mean the state kicked the Jets to the curb.

So you have absolutely no clue what the deal was the Jets were going after in NY. That's not my fault, is it?

Here's a link. This basically repeats what I've already said. Schumer has threatened the NFL.

It's an empty threat. Even if we assume one senator could force this through (highly unlikely given the fact that other owners have their own senators working for them), how exactly would it matter..? The last time someone attacked the NFL on anti-trust grounds was a little group called the USFL. They won a settlement in the amount of one whole dollar.

 

[QuiGon]

This is a complete strawman argument. Who said Buffalo is up against LA?

Um, that's kind of the whole point of the post that started this thread...

Could you please pay better attention if you plan to post in these forums..?