Buffalo Rising Online

Good idea, but why would it have to be a non-profit venture? It would seem that a for-profit arm for the people of WNY would provide higher incentive to raise the needed money. The desire to keep the Bills here would go a long way, but being able to see a return on my investment would make me want to invest more.

Does anyone know how Gren Bay's system works?

Although I think major changes need to be made in Buffalo, Wilson is a greedy idiot.

Reagrdless of our population or our economic situation, he packs the stadium on Sunday win or lose, rain or shine.....and we have one of the bigger stadiums in the league.

The loyal fans are the ones that have made his investment grow in the last 30 yrs, now none of it is good enough.

The NFL can't keep a football team in LA because the fans suck.There are still plenty of of people here to keep the team in Buffalo.

Raise the ticket prices, no reason to have the 2nd cheapest seats in the league. I am sure the people in Buffalo would share the expense in order to keep the team.

The Packers are not-for-profit as well. All money goes right back into the franchise. It's the only way they can survive, and it's worked very well for them as they've clearly remained competitive despite being in such a tiny market.

No way is the NFL going to allow Buffalo to do what Green Bay did way back when...

mbhxam - agreed! We will only make ourselves look worse to request it when it is not necessary.

Build a new stadium and raise ticket prices.

Legalities and rules aside, those numbers suggested by Higgins aren't even close to realistic. $400 million???

Does anyone really think 50,000 people would each pay $8000 upfront, in return for no profit and no interest on that money ever? Or that 5000 people would each pay $80,000 upfront for no profit and no interest forever? Or that 500 people would each pay $800,000 upfront for no profit and no interest forever?

I can't imagine anywhere near $400M could be raised that way. I doubt even $100M. My guess is maybe 1,000 people would each pay $5000 on average (that's $5M), and another 200 deep pocket types would pay $100,000 on average (that's another $20M). So there'd be $25M, which is $375M short of the $400M proposed by Higgins. And even that is depending on a lot. Seriously, 200 people each kissing goodbye to $100K with nothing in return? It might happen, but even if it did or even if double that many people did, it still falls way short.

My numbers air out of thin air too, but they sound much more realistic. This is why more cities don't even push for non-profit public ownership - yeah it's fun to demonize the NFL but after doing that, the numbers just don't work. The one instance of Green Bay started back in the 1920s when franchises had very low value. The Packers sold additional stock in 1998 which raised only $24M, even in that seriously football-crazed area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Public_company

... Another stock sale occurred late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised over $24 million, money used for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale...

Why should Higgins and Collins get any credit for suggesting a plan they know won't work?

Anyhow, focusing on who owns the team distracts from real issues of net revenue growth relative to the other franchises. The trend is bad for that, with larger markets on a fast growth trend and just not anywhere near the same possibilities here in this area for strong revenue growth from corporate luxury boxes and premium seat licenses. The Bills have found ways to at least stay somewhat competitive so far, to their credit, but future trends show a lot of continued growth across most of the league and the gap will further widen. That's what makes the future look uncertain, as Wilson said. He's speaking the truth.

Building a new stadium isn't impossible but it could worsen the problem.

Modern stadiums are very expensive and yearly debt payments for that would eat up a chunk of revenues that already are in the lower portion of the league. In other cities, sales of corporate luxury boxes and premium seat licenses can add revenue growth to help make up for stadium debt, but here the money from those would be much more limited. It might make more sense to keep using the current stadium long term.

For ownership, the only semi-realistic possibility of the team staying is if when the time comes, some combination of Golisano, Rich, or Jacobs decide to buy the team from Wilson's estate just for the fun of owning an NFL team here despite financial challenges.

Sally, I like the sarcasim...you really think the NFL will block the move because of "Nielson rating points" across upstate. There are more people in the GTA then all of upstate. Plus if the Bills moved to Toronto they would become "Canada's team". Anyways, in the end it boils down to money. The Jerry Jones and Robert Krafts' of the world would much rather have a team with average ticket prices at $250 then a team with average ticket prices at $45. I don't know where you are getting the GTA is the 14th largest metro area in N. America. I have heard from multiple sources that it's the 5th. (regardless there are 3 MILLION PEOPLE JUST IN THE CITY OF TORONTO)

The idea to raise ticket prices and it will be OK is also flawed. Note* They just raised my tickets by $10 yesterday. My tickets for the Bills were 42 two years ago...now they're 70. It's obsurd that a team that hasn;t made the playoffs in 8 years is raising their tickets by 30% in two years. The Bills are making money, they just want to make more money. Remember we haven't made the playoffs in 8 YEARS...THE TEAM CAN"T KEEP RAISING PRICES WHEN THEY CAN"T MAKE THE BLOODY PLAYOFFS!!!!

Anyways, the Bills are on the upswing...next year we'll break the playoff drought. GO BILLS..[deleted]

I can't believe what I'm hearing on this thread! This pessimism speaks of compacency and cowardice. Why not fight for such a big part of our cultural heritage!? It seems that Buffalo desperately wants the rest of the country to notice us for our bountiful history and beauty. However, without a national stage on which to celebrate our heritage and regional identity, like the NFL (every Sunday, September to February), no one will be looking when we finally finish our waterfront, or rehab the whole of downtown. An NFL football game is like having a giant commercial for the communtiy spirit of the area. Without such an important privilage, we will become completely marginalized. Quick! Name something culturally important in Toledo, OH. . .

Looks like Sally needs to go back to geography class! Toronto is the 14th largest metropolitan area in the Americas which includes South and Central America, so let's go back to primary school and recall that countries like Brazil, Argentina and Colombia while in the Americas are not in North America! So on a list including only the US, Canada and Mexico Toronto is approximately the 11th largest metropolitan area by official statistics from the US Census Bureau, Statistics Canada and Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática.

According to Statistics Canada the 2006 census population for the Toronto CMA was 5,113,149. However, if you look at North American media markets Toronto is about the fifth largest market (defined as the Golden Horsehoe region which had a census 2006 population of 8,102,163 (note that this excludes any population residing in the United States!).

Warren Buffet, coincidentally, was in Toronto this week. His forecast likely trumps (no pun intended) any strategy that Buffalo can devise to prevent an eventual move by the Bills.

"I think it is more likely that we will continue our present polices in the U.S. and the Canadian dollar, over time, would strengthen even further."

"I think those Canadian dollars are very likely, even from this level, to be worth more than the U.S. dollar five or 10 years from now than they are today."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=290491

RonR and Bizcomplete - Read more carefully what I wrote please. Higgins specifically said his plan is to raise $400 million via public non-profit stock sale for 49% ownership, and for some other wealthy investor to fund the other $400M for 51%. That's quoted directly in the BR article and also in Saturday's Buffalo News. I'm not putting words in his mouth.

I'm not debating feasibility of profit vs. non-profit issue, only pointing out that to claim it's realistic to raise $400M from the public is foolish. As I noted Green Bay was able to raise only $24M in a well publicized public stock sale in 1998. I say 'only' $24M not to look down on that amount - 24 million is a lot of money and they were happy with that much. But of the 400,000 shares they offered up for sale at $200 each, only a little over 100,000 were sold. Again, 'only' is relative to claim from Higgins that $400M worth can be sold for the Bills. That figure is way way way more than can realistically be expected. Green Bay public ownership was established in 1923 when the franchise cost was in the thousands of dollars not the high-hundred-thousands of dollars.

RonR - About your idea for revenue sharing, I won't argue against that and neither would Mr. Wilson. Even though he's usually condemned here, he's been one of very few owners over the years pushing the other NFL owners for long term solutions to help the Bills stay competitive in Buffalo well after his passing. The people who will argue against it are the Jerry Jones (Dallas owner), Bob Kraft (NE Patriots owner), Dan Snyder (Redskins owner), etc. By the way, the BIlls are making a profit now. Google around for the Forbes magazine 2007 report. They do one every year about the NFL with info about each team. As Wilson and Russ Brandon said there's no immediate emergency. The big problem is long term revenue growth trends.

Opps, sorry this should say:

Green Bay public ownership was established in 1923 when the franchise cost was in the thousands of dollars not the high-hundred-thousandsmillions of dollars.

RonR,

The 250 dollar AVERAGE came from the FAN590 in Toronto, the Buffalo News, TSN.ca, ect...it was also confirmed when Ted Rogers jokingly said there will be "Two seats" under 100 dollars at the game. Look at the price of Leafs games and you'll immediately see that the ticket prices in Toronto will be the highest in the league.

You're an idiot if you think there are plenty of people in the current market who will gladly pay 70 dollars and not complain. If that's the case why do we only have 45,000 season ticketholders? if that is the case, why do we struggle to sell out December games? Why do the Bills not have complete occupancy of the luxury boxes, or the indoor luxury seats? Maybe pussies like yourself are affraid to "sit out in the cold with a bunch of drunk fools with hunting gear", but building a dome wont make any difference. You're an idiot dude, go watch the figure skating championships and drink a few martini's.

Look at Forbes magazine, the Bills are making money ALONE http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/30/biz_07nfl_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

RonR - Those are FOR-PROFIT public companies. HUGE difference, and would get back to the same problem as is faced now.

The New York Rangers, Toronto Blue Jays and Seattle Mariners are all public companies in one form or another. This is not ground breaking stuff. Just stuff that a lot of people in Buffalo can not grasp.

RonR - Higgins is indeed proposing a non-profit sale, and nowhere does he say what you said that the shares could be re-sold. So you're making that part up.

you are not understanding the stock sale. It is NOT a non-profit stock as you think. The "plan" says that people can not sell shares of the team at a profit.

I'm understanding plenty. Look at item 1 in the BR article above:

1) Current Owner Ralph Wilson sells the Bills to a newly incorporated, not-for-profit entity, the “Buffalo Bills Football Club, Inc.”

And from Saturday's Buffalo News:

This corporation could issue 10 million shares, with 51 percent going to a single person or partnership for about $419 million. The remaining $402 million worth of stock could be sold to shareholders, on a not-for-profit basis, at about $82.10 per share.

Since when can shares of a non-profit entity be publicly traded for profit as you claim? Those other example teams you cite are not non-profit orgs.

The GB Packers are not-for-profit, and conditions of owning their share explicitly forbid ever reselling any shares for profit (see bold text below): http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/

... There now have been four stock drives in the 88-year history of the team. The first stock sale, which took place at that 1923 meeting, saw local merchants raise $5,000 by selling 1,000 shares for $5 apiece, with a stipulation that the purchaser also had to buy at least six season tickets. The second, in 1935, raised $15,000 after the corporation had gone into receivership. ...

The third, in 1950, came on the heels of founder Curly Lambeau's 30-year dominion, when the club's officers arranged to amend the corporation's bylaws to permit the sale of up to 10,000 total shares of stock .... Roughly $50,000 was raised in one 11-day period alone. Reportedly, one woman from a farm near Wrightstown, Wis., showed up at the team's offices with $25 worth of quarters in a match box. A total of about $118,000 was generated through this major stock sale...

The fourth came late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised more than $24 million, monies which were utilized for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale, which ended March 16, 1998.

...The board of directors in turn elect a seven-member Executive Committee (officers) of the corporation, consisting of a president, vice president, treasurer, secretary and three members-at-large. The president is the only officer who receives compensation ... The balance of the committee is sitting gratis. Shares of stock cannot be resold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. Limited transfer of shares (ie., to heirs and relatives) is permissible.

Somebody explain to me how Green Bay publicly raising $5000 (1923), then $15,000 (1935), $50,000 (1950), and $24 million (1998) implies that it's realistic to think anywhere near $400 million can be raised in 2007 for 49% of the Buffalo Bills.

When GB raised money for ownership of the team, franchise values were orders of magnitude smaller than they are now. It was like buying Microsoft or Apple while they were being run in garages, or Google when it was in a dorm. Sure, at that point somebody could've held a few car wash fund raisers and bought them. Doesn't mean that's realistic now after they've exploded in value.

Biz - If you want to suggest alternatve plans, great. But please don't order me to forget Higgins' letter. You're not the boss of BR. My comments call out what I consider serious b.s. in the plan proposed by my representative in Congress. This BR article discusses that plan proposed by him, and quotes what he said. It should be expected people will comment about that plan.

RonR - You're also propsoing something different from the non-profit plan Higgins proposed, and VERY different from rules the GB Packers have in place which do NOT ever share any profits with shareholders via dividends or anything else.

I hold Collins and Higgins to a much higher standard than I hold you two to, since I help pay their salaries.

The poison pill idea sounds too vauge to earn my feedback, pro or con. Even if a poison pill can be structured effectively to forbid the team moving (and I'm not saying it can or can't), then it would still have the effect of making it harder to raise $400 million or anything close to it for the publicly traded 49% - not easier.

It's my contention that predicting $400M or so being raised to purchase 49% of the Bills the way Higgins proposes things is ludicrous. Individual investors wanting a share of the Bills for hometown pride more so than a big long term profit could IMHO reasonably be predicted at something near what GB fans spent in 1998 - about $24M. GB offered 400,000 shares at $200 each, and people bought 100,000 of those shares. In other words, even for rabid fans like Packers fans, $24 million was all that was raised even though four times that amount was offered for public sale. For inflation, let's call it $40M (close to my previous guesses). That's an optimistic number, yet still only one tenth of the $400M my Congressman told us is a realistic amount to raise.

And RonR, I'm not interested in any arrogant insults from you. If you disagree with my view - fine, wonderful. Neither of us can predict the future, but I've given plenty of basis for my reasoning.

Damp - I see what you mean, but also we shouldn't minimize what GB fans are spending. $24M is a lot to invest with zero financial return. And in addition to buying all that non-transferable non-profit stock, GB taxpayers have approved a LOT of public funding for the team (much more than Erie Co has given the Bills).

In 2000, the GB Packers team president threatened the possibility of the team moving to L.A. unless additional public funds were given (dedicated 0.5% sales tax hike, which was subsequently approved by GB voters).

This might open some eyes (or not) if anyone thinks Packers management are angels and Bills management are devils. Note the taxes, other public aid, and the hefty season ticket surcharge listed following the threats:

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/feb00/lambeau01022900.asp

Packers boss warns of move if stadium doesn't get upgrade Team could go bankrupt, pave way for NFL to order relocation, Harlan says By Richard P. Jones and Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel staff March 1, 2000

Howard - Green Bay Packers officials warned Tuesday that the community could lose the team if nothing is done to renovate Lambeau Field, and that delaying the project one year could add $10 million or more to the $295 million cost.

Packers President Bob Harlan has never threatened to move the team from Green Bay. But he told state lawmakers Tuesday that the team could go bankrupt in five years without the project. And if the Packers board voted to liquidate the team in five years, Harlan said that in all probability the National Football League would move the Packers to Los Angeles, one of many cities desperate to land an NFL team.

Harlan made his comments at an Assembly committee hearing on a bill to help finance the renovation with a 0.5% sales tax in Brown County, subject to a local referendum. ... "We cannot move the franchise," Harlan said in response to lawmakers' questions. But he described a worst-case scenario, in which the team in five years would have to exhaust $35 million in reserve funds to make repairs to the stadium and field a competitive team. "At that stage, the board of directors could decide to liquidate the franchise," Harlan said. That would leave the NFL one team short, and the league most likely would take the 53 players and coaching staff elsewhere, he added.

...The Packers are planning to renovate Lambeau Field for $295 million. That includes public funding, starting at $160 million in bonds that a stadium board would issue. Under the bill, the 0.5% sales tax would be subject to voter approval this year. The sales tax would pay off the $160 million in bonds, plus interest estimated roughly at $110 million. In addition, the tax would pay yearly maintenance costs of about $4 million.

The Packers also sought $9.1 million in state transportation funds, but that money is not included in the legislation. The bill authorizes an unspecified amount at a future date, subject to approval of the Legislature. The transportation funds would be used for infrastructure improvements at the stadium. The Packers have pledged $125.9 million toward the project. Their share consists of $92.5 million from a onetime surcharge on season-ticket holders, $20.4 million from a stock sale and a $13 million loan from the NFL. The onetime fee on season-ticket holders would be $1,600 for Green Bay ticket holders and $400 for Milwaukee ticket holders. ...

Sally, I'm so sorry that you failed to receive even the most basic education with regards to statistics but really there is no reason to inflict your ignorance time and time again on the rest of us. IMaybe you think that by throwing a hybrid of real and imaginary statistics people will just accept what you're saying. 'm going to break this all down for you nice and slow and maybe, just maybe something will finally sink in!!!!!!

Its difficult to compare the populations of metropolitan areas across countries because every country uses different definitions as to what areas are included in a metropolitan area. Generally speaking the US takes a very liberal approach to calculating metropolitan populations relative to most other industrialized countries. A great example of this is Statistics Canada and how it defines the GTA and Hamilton as distinct Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA), in the US they would be considered both separate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) as well as a single Combined Statistical Area (CSA) much the same as Washington-Baltimore and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland. So there is no direct way to compare metro areas in the US and Canada because the methodologies used are different. Similarly we can't say "San Diego is bigger due to Tijuana and Buffalo is bigger to due St. Catherines" crossing a national border is vastly different than simply crossing the county or state line.

That said if we take the most conservative 2006 US metro area numbers (MSAs) and the 2006 Canadian CMA numbers we get the following list of MSAs and CMAs you will note that Toronto is #10: 1. Greater New York (NY, NJ, CT) 18,818,536 2. Greater Los Angeles (CA) 12,950,129 3. Chicago (IL, IN, WI) 9,505,748 4. Dallas-Ft. Worth (TX) 6,003,967 5. Philadelphia (PA, NJ, DE, MD) 5,826,742 6. Houston (TX) 5,539,949 7. Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Palm Beach 5,463,857 8. Washington, DC 5,290,400 9. Atlanta 5,138,223 10. Toronto 5,113,149 11. Detroit 4,468,966 12. Boston (MA, NH) 4,455,217 13. San Francisco-Oakland 4,180,027 14. Phoenix 4,039,182 15. Riverside-San Bernadino (CA) 4,026,135

As noted earlier however the Canadian methodology is more conservative than in the US so the figure for Toronto is likely significantly higher if the US methodology was used!

Also on a combined list of US MSAs and Canadian CMAs Buffalo-Niagara Falls is the 50th largest metropolitan area, not the 34th largest (removing Canadian CMAs Buffalo is 47th), ranked below other US NFL-less MSAs like San Antonio, Austin, Sacramento, Hartford, Las Vegas, Providence, etc.

It is very important to add to this blog that Chris Collins is an excellent leader. We should all be excited that we have someone like this in office. He has volunteered his time and salary to making things better in our city. And for what its worth, Brown is one of the better mayors that we've had in a long time.

Collins man is very passionate and sincere, but also strong mineded.... He is a realistic business person and is serious about turning things around.

Sally - No, I'm not from Toronto I'm just an ordinary citizen who hates misused statistics and made-up data! But I congratulate you on being a prime example of what is left behind in an area suffering from an exodus of well educated and talented people!

Its spelled Mississauga, and Mississauga is RIGHT NEXT to the City of Toronto, Mississauga with a population of 668,549 is a western suburb of the City of Toronto which has a population of 2,503,281 (maybe you have difficulty understanding this because you are used to Cheektowaga being considered a large suburb). Take a drive and you will see this very fact for yourself!

The Census Bureau doesn't consider how long of a drive people have from one county to a football stadium in another county in determining what is included in a metro area or not and for that matter what percentage of people from one area use an airport in a different area (or country for that matter) - thousands of people drive to JFK and Newark from Hartford to catch international flights but you don't see Hartford being included in the population of the NYC area simply because of that.

Secondly, several people have presented data related to US and Canadian metropolitan areas and US and Canadian media markets: using US MSAs and Canadian CMAs the GTA is the 10th largest (again the Canadian methodology is much more conservative than that of the US so the GTA number would likely be larger under US Census Bureau counts).

In terms of city proper populations Toronto is the fourth largest city in the US and Canada: 1) New York 8,250,567 2) Los Angeles 3,849,368 3) Chicago 2,873,326 4) Toronto 2,503,281 5) Houston 2,144,491 6) Montreal 1,620,693 7) Phoenix 1,512,986 8) Philadelphia 1,448,396 9) San Antonio 1,296,682 10) San Diego 1,256,951.

Regardless if we are looking at metropolitan area population (10th), city population (4th) Toronto is firmly ranked in the top 10 - since you apparently have problems with numbers this means that Toronto is much much closer to the top spot than Buffalo ever will be!

Give me low stars if you want, but I'm with Sally on this one, all the way. When the TO market is stated as one of the 5th largest markets in North America, they are indeed including Buffalo and Rochester, US parts of the Golden Horseshoe.

If you go by a 90 mile radius, both Toronto and Buffalo will have VERY close to the same population, since each city is within 90 miles of the other. The Buffalo market, would be better defined to include Erie, Niagara, Wyoming, Orleans, Chautauqua, Cattaragus, and Monroe Counties, as well as Ft. Erie, St Catherines, and basicall all points Soyth of Hamilton. Toronto should be defined but all parts from Hamilton, North, and including Kitchener and Oshawa. If you use these definitions (which are suprising similar in square mileage), the "Buffalo" market has 2,900,000, and the "Toronto" market, 5,600,000. So yeah, Toronto is bigger, but Buffalo's market size, if you include the canadian population, puts us right in the middle of the size of US NFL markets, such as Denver, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I don't think that it's right to penalize the Buffalo market because we sit on an international border, and essentially can't count 25% of our population.

Also, Higgins in on the right track. Of the 49%, I would guess that people like Jim Kelly, Robert Rich, Mark Hammister, and other wealth WNY businessmen, would own a majority of that, with the rest of us owning "pride" shares.

Just my two cents. Seriosuly though, why are there so many haters on thsi sire...pessimists who see gloom and doom in everything? We can do this!

TJ - The NFL current ownership rules allow up to 25 people to own a share of a team. So people such as Rich and Hamister are already each free to chip in 1/25 or more (which would be $32M if the price tag is $800M).

Community ownership has a feel-good sound to it, but won't solve the relevant problems. That's not gloom and doom, that's looking at it rationally. Community ownership doesn't remove demands for costly public funding, anit doesn't eliminate threats of a team dissolving and being reconstituted in another city (same thing as moving, except to lawyers). The economic realities of today's NFL remain the same.

I've no idea either way if it will be feasible to have a team in Buffalo long term, but community ownership proposal and the new stadium talk are side shows. The real issue is how to get a better growth of net revenue flow at least competitive with what most other teams will be having. (Where 'net' would mean revenue remaining after funding stadium debt, if a new one is ever constructed). This would entail selling more corporate suites, selling more premium seating with expensive license fees, or maybe some other ideas.

As noted in the Milwaukee Journal article quoted in my previous comment, GB season ticket holders each paid a $1400 extra fee and voters approved a 0.5% sales tax hike. Would those concepts work in Buffalo? I don't know. GB has a long waiting list for season tickets (56,000 people waiting), and all their private boxes are sold every year. And even with that level of football fandom, Packers were able to sell $24 million of non-profit stock even though they offered to sell $100M (and yet $400M of non-profit stock is expected to be sold for 49% of the Bills according to Higgins... um, yeah right, sure).

Seriosuly though, why are there so many haters on thsi sire...pessimists who see gloom and doom in everything? We can do this!

I agree 'we can' in theory keep the Bills here, but answer me this TJ or anybody - why is it that Buffalo's wealthy people or corporations here aren't buying up all the existing luxury suites currently? Why don't Rich, Hamister, and those other business people you referred to simply start buying up the suites instead of letting them sit unsold?

Actually, it'd cost less than $32M for Rich or Hamister to participate in an ownership group. NFL currently requires one partner to have at least 30%, and up to 24 can split 70%. If price is $800M for example, the 30% share would be $240M and each 1/24 would be around $23M each.

About Hamister - Maybe so, but anyone who lets Artvoice bother them is not NFL material. Very thick skin needed. Damp is right that there will be many potential bidders from all over the place. If Buffalo area big shots want to compete, they'll need to dig very deep in their pockets and accept a lot of risk. It's possible they might. Time will tell. That aspect is much more important than anything politicians are saying.

From the very top of the link sally provided with her note that it shows each NFL teams "real market": "Important: this map is highly inaccurate and should be understood only as a demonstration, and not as any kind of reliable data yet. It is based on only a few thousands of votes spread across all teams, across the country."

Nice one!

Let the Bills move to Toronto! You know the current or future owner is going to try to extort as much coin as they can squeeze out of us. 100 + million it’s been done before. We should take that money and provide Free bus or train service to Toronto for any ticket holder. Lets see $100,000,000.00 ++++ dollars for 6 + games a year, or a $35-$50 bus or train fare person. Let Toronto anti up the cash for the for the latest whim of the next owner. We get a team a few miles further away a free ride to and from the game, no $25 parking fee, maybe get Labatt’s to sponsor the buses free beverages to the game we can get away cheaper? Its only entertainment not like they plow the streets or do the things you would rather pay someone else to do.

Why are we subsidizing a new stadium in NYC area. If Spitzer and the state want to really help, they would allocate funds for a state of the art retractable dome for downtown Buffalo.

Among all the concerts, football, venues etc it would have an enormous impact on revitalizing downtown and also helping us keep our team. Ralph Wilson Stadium is a pile of shit.

The HSBC arena was subsidized.....? I think it has down wonders for attracting people downtown. This is a process that should be started now.

Last, Sally made some good points. Wilson has cried and threatened to move the team several times in the past 30 years when he doesn't get his way. The man makes money, I don't care what he says. Kind of surprising at his age that he is this ambitious and greedy.

Futhermore, why he is so concerened over maximizing the sale of the team after his demise. What good is the extra money going to do for him then?

BROKEEPS - Yeah I know Hamister isn't a major factor, but he was just an example somebody cited among a group of millionaires who could buy smaller portions. Maybe he doesn't even have $20-30M for a minority share, and as Biz says he's probably not willing to get involved anyway.

The smaller ownership shares won't be the make-or-break issue anyway. What matters is what billionaires are willing to do - Golisano, Jacobs, Rich, and any from other places. They'll need to compete with bids from a few other cities. Among those three if they team up, more than enough wealth is on paper even if price is $900M or $1B or more. But that doesn't mean they'll have the cash available and are willing to invest it for a team here. They'll look at the projected revenue numbers and long term prospects.

I still do wonder why more of the local millionaires haven't been buying up all of the corporate suites over the years if they're so interested in the team staying here.

oh God, just GO!