|
Post by Bruinsfan on Mar 30, 2014 11:01:12 GMT -6
would be pretty crazy if St louis bolts and says to the raiders, hey lets go half half on a private stadium like metlife with the nFl contributing....football returns to LA with 2 teams with two old fanbases that can go back to their old teams. Rams and Raiders fans are two different breeds. like the cubs and white sox.
I still think the best business model is one team in LA.
It would be sad to see st ouis lose its second NFL team essentially being witten off as an nfl city. The NFL should have never let this happen. One LA relocation should have been blocked in the 90s what a dumb league.
They should have waited it out in LA and forced the Raiders to stay Oakland coliseum is a shanty and not much better. they could have pushed for a renovation of one of the old parks while pushing for a new stadium during the meantime. A real stupid move. Mostly caused by the NFL not being able to control al davis who wanted to stick it to the NFL by leaving them out of LA.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 2, 2014 8:35:15 GMT -6
Trump interested in the Bills?
Not going to happen but it is telling. There is interest in NY and lots of NY money that want that team. I also read a tweet online that NFL meetings have discussed Terry Pegula.
Bills are staying.
Even if Ontario buys the team they dont end up in Toronto. They negotiate with NY and get a stadium closer to canada but still in reach of rochester and buffalo (niagra falls)
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Apr 2, 2014 9:52:48 GMT -6
Trump interested in the Bills? Not going to happen but it is telling. There is interest in NY and lots of NY money that want that team. I also read a tweet online that NFL meetings have discussed Terry Pegula. Bills are staying. Even if Ontario buys the team they dont end up in Toronto. They negotiate with NY and get a stadium closer to canada but still in reach of rochester and buffalo (niagra falls) Zero chance a group from Toronto buys the team without full intentions for relocation to Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 2, 2014 16:12:57 GMT -6
Trump interested in the Bills? Not going to happen but it is telling. There is interest in NY and lots of NY money that want that team. I also read a tweet online that NFL meetings have discussed Terry Pegula. Bills are staying. Even if Ontario buys the team they dont end up in Toronto. They negotiate with NY and get a stadium closer to canada but still in reach of rochester and buffalo (niagra falls) Zero chance a group from Toronto buys the team without full intentions for relocation to Toronto. Any relocation to toronto faces a strong chance of being blocked especially since they dont have an nfl stadium and TV rights are the most important thing. MLSE cant buy the team anyway. cant be a corporation need an owner to own at least a third in the NFL. So it would have to be a new owner for toronto who might as well keep the team close to canada without actually going there. Either way imo there is about 0% chance the bills leave western NY.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 2, 2014 16:14:23 GMT -6
already meeting, urgency is setting in and cuomo wants this on his legacy. www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000338808/article/buffalo-bills-stadium-committee-meets-for-first-timeThe group met with a raised sense of urgency in establishing a plan, because the team's future has been left uncertain following the death of Hall of Fame owner Ralph Wilson last week. The franchise is expected to be placed into a trust before being sold within a few years, opening the possibility of the Bills being relocated. "I don't think anybody here could really speak to what the future holds right now," Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy said. "But there is a sense of urgency with this group. We spoke about that. I think everybody understands the seriousness of the process."
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2014 12:58:52 GMT -6
cuomo loves tax payer money and is always big on the bills. I think st louis sweetheat lease keeps them for a while it will be similar to the threat in sand diego. IMO if san diego gets a stadium then oakland has the greenlight to start pushing for a stadium in LA. St louis wont hold that one up. They can always threaten a return to LA as a second team or even go further south ( San antonio Austin, texas loves using tax money for stadiums....for people? No, for football HELL YEA YEE HAWW) I still think San antonio could be a threat especially if you pikc outside the city inbetween austin and san antonio but once LA is filled then its London as the fake threat (and no london wont get a team) I don't think San Antonio gets a team soon. If 2 teams fail 2 will go to LA. San Antonio is still relatively poor(the per capita income is terrible). I think San Antonio or Austin will get a team in the late 2020s when Jacksonville's lease expires. By that time both cites will have grown and will probably be richer. Your idea between the 2 cites won't work. Team would have no identity and a small little hick town probably couldn't afford a billion dollar stadium. It would be one or the other. ST. Louis could fail because it might be tough to build a new stadium because the current one is only 20 years old. There could be a lot of support for saying screw it this is a joke to build a new stadium only after 20 years. To hell with the Rams. The only wild card is if the governor Rams a news stadium through on his own.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2014 13:01:33 GMT -6
would be pretty crazy if St louis bolts and says to the raiders, hey lets go half half on a private stadium like metlife with the nFl contributing....football returns to LA with 2 teams with two old fanbases that can go back to their old teams. Rams and Raiders fans are two different breeds. like the cubs and white sox. I still think the best business model is one team in LA. It would be sad to see st ouis lose its second NFL team essentially being witten off as an nfl city. The NFL should have never let this happen. One LA relocation should have been blocked in the 90s what a dumb league. They should have waited it out in LA and forced the Raiders to stay Oakland coliseum is a shanty and not much better. they could have pushed for a renovation of one of the old parks while pushing for a new stadium during the meantime. A real stupid move. Mostly caused by the NFL not being able to control al davis who wanted to stick it to the NFL by leaving them out of LA. Best model is 2 teams because it would be easier to pay for a new stadium that way and LA could easily support 2 teams. They do a great job in every other sport supporting 2 except maybe hockey(Anaheims attendance isn't great but they are viableish) The reason the Raiders left was because Al Davis did strike a deal for a new stadium in Hollywood park but he abandoned it when the NFL required him to make it for 2 teams eventually.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 5, 2014 16:18:45 GMT -6
cuomo loves tax payer money and is always big on the bills. I think st louis sweetheat lease keeps them for a while it will be similar to the threat in sand diego. IMO if san diego gets a stadium then oakland has the greenlight to start pushing for a stadium in LA. St louis wont hold that one up. They can always threaten a return to LA as a second team or even go further south ( San antonio Austin, texas loves using tax money for stadiums....for people? No, for football HELL YEA YEE HAWW) I still think San antonio could be a threat especially if you pikc outside the city inbetween austin and san antonio but once LA is filled then its London as the fake threat (and no london wont get a team) I don't think San Antonio gets a team soon. If 2 teams fail 2 will go to LA. San Antonio is still relatively poor(the per capita income is terrible). I think San Antonio or Austin will get a team in the late 2020s when Jacksonville's lease expires. By that time both cites will have grown and will probably be richer. Your idea between the 2 cites won't work. Team would have no identity and a small little hick town probably couldn't afford a billion dollar stadium. It would be one or the other. ST. Louis could fail because it might be tough to build a new stadium because the current one is only 20 years old. There could be a lot of support for saying screw it this is a joke to build a new stadium only after 20 years. To hell with the Rams. The only wild card is if the governor Rams a news stadium through on his own. team would have an identity depending on how you name them. you can put nfl football anywhere near a large city. Call them san antonio or whichever city is bigger. plretty certain buffalo goes nowhere. Oakland is a lock. St louis and san diego are not hopeless. Buffalo is staying in western ny
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 5, 2014 21:09:24 GMT -6
The idea between 2 cities not only would work it would be outstanding. It would require state money, not a town, and a rich owner to help privately finance. Dallas doesnt play down town, why should this team especially if it needs to draw 2 markets to be viable.
This is the NFL, downtown is rarely an option and often not the best model for success. You can put the nfl virtually anywhere and be successful...and in texas. Football is foolproof. The team certainly gets called san antonio, more well known city. Really depends on where the tv markets are drawn. Identity is whats on the helmet in the NFl. You dont move the team when the stadium is built. They spend a few years in the Alamo dome first.
Hell you could do 2 years split 2 stadiums. Alamo dome half the games and Longhorns stadium. get the team exposure in both markets that will support the team. Gov Perry has already hinted that he would be interested in getting a third nfl team for texas.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 5, 2014 21:22:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2014 0:47:56 GMT -6
The idea between 2 cities not only would work it would be outstanding. It would require state money, not a town, and a rich owner to help privately finance. Dallas doesnt play down town, why should this team especially if it needs to draw 2 markets to be viable. This is the NFL, downtown is rarely an option and often not the best model for success. You can put the nfl virtually anywhere and be successful...and in texas. Football is foolproof. The team certainly gets called san antonio, more well known city. Really depends on where the tv markets are drawn. Identity is whats on the helmet in the NFl. You dont move the team when the stadium is built. They spend a few years in the Alamo dome first. Hell you could do 2 years split 2 stadiums. Alamo dome half the games and Longhorns stadium. get the team exposure in both markets that will support the team. Gov Perry has already hinted that he would be interested in getting a third nfl team for texas. By my count their are 11 suburban NFL stadiums. None of them are 40 miles away from the city center though. All of them are in the metro area of their name sake except San Francisco 49ers are in the San Jose metro area(Santa Clara) but that is still part of the San Francisco combined statistical area. If something as radical as you are proposing needs to be done then neither city deserves a team. I think San Antonio or Austin COULD support a team but the better choice by far is 2 in LA. If all 3 teams we listed fail ya then give San Antonio/Austin a team. I don't think the NFL is that keen on either of those places YET. San Antonio and Austin or both smaller TV markets than their population. San Antonio is 30th population wise in the US but the 36th biggest TV market Austin is 34th population wise but 45th in TV market. Long term the outlook is good because Austin is the fastest % growing city over a million people in the US. San Antonio is also a very fast growth place. I just don't see either happening soon.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 6, 2014 11:19:36 GMT -6
I just think You could have a foxboro situation (outside boston but draws from providence as well. It would need to be south texas team...preferably in the AFC not NFC that way Jerry Jones is less likely to pick a fight about TV rights. Really everyone can be made happy.
You do 2 early games One NFC, one AFc then one team gets the evening game. try to get as many chances where One team plays monday thursday or sunday night that way all three texas games are on tv at different times.
You could be right though mike, honestly for san antonio to get a team it might not take a new stadium but maybe a major renovation of the alamo dome...while that renovation is going on play games in austin to promote the team then move them south.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 6, 2014 11:20:28 GMT -6
What do you think about the bills being sold early. IMO the earlier the sale the more likely the team stays because they still have to play several years in buffalo...the later the sell the more likely they leave.
Iv mentioned Terry Pegula and ill mention him again. He is imo a perfect nfl owner. Rich as hell loves the area. Also his business is something the nfl will want to get involved with. Natural gas is a booming industry in North America. Its not going to drop in value and the NFL will want a natural gas guy.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 6, 2014 11:41:07 GMT -6
Things to watch for the bills
Terry Pegulas Interest in the NFL agency he owns. If he divests his interest or transfers it into someone elses name .
If Andrew Cuomo starts talking about progress or the stadium committee which just met talks about progress on stadium talks.
Look out for Tom Golisano and any billionaire from ny even NYC that may want a team in new york.
If the team is sold to out of town ownership that could move the team look for that to happen near the end of the lease which is around 2019
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 6, 2014 11:45:28 GMT -6
beta.thescore.com/news/473404Jeremy Jacobs interested in the Bills? Can do this three ways. Sells Bruins (unlikely) Transfers bruins to sons name (Likely) Kraft gives him permission to own both as long as the bills arent marketed in boston (also could happen) I hope option 1 lol
|
|