Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

If there is "no cap," then we can kiss Aso and probably other top tier CBs goodbye.

No way can Bob outspend Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, and maybe a few others. He won't do it. It's not his style.

If this happens, it could affect the NFL landscape for YEARS. It could land the top players in the top markets and create too wide of a gap between the haves and the have nots. It'll make agents demand more for their clients because teams can now go after players with reckless abandon.

To me, this basically unravels anything the owners were trying to accomplish--Remember how they said they were needing more revenue, and that players needed to take less???

So if there's no cap--or at least some variation that renders a "cap" pointless--doesn't this end up eating their wallet and making them right back at square one?

:cusswords:
 
How much of the delay do you think is due to the fact that some of these veteran guys, who have a vote, don't want to deal with training camp and preseason? I know that may sound dumb, but that keeps going round and round in my mind for some reason. If there is no training camp and not many preseason games, I would think that some of those old vets may not have to worry about losing their starting roles. After all, this is about what's the best thing for them. Especially when I keep hearing that "they (the players) are in no hurry to get a deal done".
 
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.
 
Allstar said:
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.
Click to expand...

Greedy bastards!!! How bout THIS!! The FANS file a friggin lawsuit against the players for mental and emotional distress!! Geeeezzzzz! They don't settle this crap SOON I'm gonna find it real difficult to "pull" for a favorite player! They can all kiss my fat old butt!!
 
steelbtexan said:
So you're saying you like the NBA/MLB model. The FT is the difference in players not being able to do the Bosh/LeBron/Wade thing in the NFL.

For every example of Dunta example of the FT use there are Walter Jones/Peppers/Haynesworth/Seymour etc... who were FT'ed multiple times and played at a pro bowl level. Lets face it Dunta was/is a selfish and he dogged it on the field. Put the blame where it should be laid. (Squarely on Dunta)

But thie Dunta thing was a sympton ofwhat's wrong with the Texans. Dunta (supposed leader) doesn't get what he wants and whine about it, doesn't get his way and dogs it. (Some kind of leader he is)

This yr MW whine about having to play DE and they moved him to LB. So hopefully it will work out better. But if Watt or Smith get hurt do you think MW will move back to DE and Reed will play LB? The team would be better in that senario. But I doubt MW would move. (These are the Texans team leaders. LOL
Click to expand...

Having a hard salary cap for the last ~20 years is what made the NFL competitive, it's not just the franchise tag. The F tag was started in 1993, but the use of it has gone way up in the last 5 years. It's now a hostage tool used by organizations who have the cap space to hang on to players that would otherwise leave them. Teams have every opportunity in the world to make a deal with their players, but if the player doesn't want to be there, then I don't want to see him forced to be there. I guess you could say I'm in favor of a free market.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if there were more limits to it. Say a player can only be F tagged once ever by a single team, or each organization can use the F tag once per 2 years. Force them to use it strategically rather than as an enforcement tool to keep players from hitting the market. Also, if they reduced the cost of signing an F tag recipient to just a 1st round pick, then I think it would be less of an issue, because nobody is going to pay two 1sts for a player on top of a big contract.
 
Allstar said:
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you feel about it, but I think that there are so many people involved with so many diverse agendas, and so many complicated issues, and so many financial issues................that even once an agreement is in place at the last minute, when everyone has a chance to digest everything (sort of like Obamacare) and see how it really works (or doesn't work) and what it actually results in..............a ways down the line, there will be some very unhappy parties.
 
Last edited:
Porky said:
It seems to me that they are basically at the precipice of an agreement and that both sides could have this endorsed and agreed upon by the end of the day today - if not for Jackson and Mankins.

Assuming that is the case, if these two numbskulls drag this out for any length of time, especially if it costs games or even a delay to the season, then I don't think it goes well for them, either with their teammates and fellow players, and especially not with the fans. I think they are pretty close to the edge now in terms of delays starting. Maybe if they can wrap it up tomorrow or over the weekend we'll still be able to get things starting pretty much on time....but past that and delays and/or cancellations are inevitable.

These guys better think long and hard. NFL fans have a long memory.
Click to expand...

If this were the only hang up, the players could take care of it quickly.
Two 10 million dollar contracts divided by 1900 players. Each player could ante in a mere 10 thousand dollars into the kitty to satisfy these two douche bags................AFTER the CBA is signed and sealed, THEN beat the crap out of them.........that makes everybody happy!!!!!!:kitten:
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
This article would explain how this formula will totally screw the smaller market teams.

NFL Team Parity and Revenue Sharing
Click to expand...

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I'm torn on this one. As an NFL fan, I think the genius of revenue sharing is indisputable as it pertains to the overall success of the league. Obviously, it is a good thing for most cities to feel like this could be their year at the start of every season.

Where I'm torn is as a Texans fan, a big market team with a decade of suck as it's history. As a Texans fan, I want what is best for our team, and that would obviously be the ability to gain a competitive advantage over our opponents. If that means we get to sign players that smaller market teams can't because our owner has more money to spend, it's tough to not want that for our team.

I tend to lean more toward being an NFL fan, though...until I read this...

At the vote for the last CBA, Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson warned the league about the dangers inherent in the 2006 deal, “The non-shared revenue is growing and it’s got to be addressed, otherwise markets like Buffalo won’t be able to compete.”
Click to expand...

I have much respect for Wilson, BUT SCREW THE BILLS!!!!! :aggressive:
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
If this were the only hang up, the players could take care of it quickly.
Two 10 million dollar contracts divided by 1900 players. Each player could ante in a mere 10 thousand dollars into the kitty to satisfy these two douche bags................AFTER the CBA is signed and sealed, THEN beat the crap out of them.........that makes everybody happy!!!!!!:kitten:
Click to expand...

At which point they might need a Dr. Hmmm, you needing more patients or something? :spin:
 
In all seriousness, I think the absouloute genius of the NFL is parity by design. A hard salary cap combined with revenue sharing along with an inverse draft order lets the fans of every NFL team dream that this is their year - and it can be. Many small market clubs have gone far or even won Superbowls. You don't have to have the NFL version of the Yankees to compete in this league. Because of that, success is driven by upper management, drafting suyccessfully, and having a HC and staff to put it together consistently.

To me, that philosphy that the owners developed - all for one, and one for all, is the primary reason why NFL surpassed baseball as America's favorite sport over the past few decades. You think Royals fans go into every year thinking they can beat the Yanks?

Call it Socialism, or what have you but in the limited world in which the NFL lives, it works. To me, this is a delicate balance and if they mess this up and clubs fall into the haves and the havenots, you will see a slow erosion of support. What's best for the weakest and smallest market teams is what's best for the NFL as a whole imo.
 
Double Barrel said:
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I'm torn on this one. As an NFL fan, I think the genius of revenue sharing is indisputable as it pertains to the overall success of the league. Obviously, it is a good thing for most cities to feel like this could be their year at the start of every season.

Where I'm torn is as a Texans fan, a big market team with a decade of suck as it's history. As a Texans fan, I want what is best for our team, and that would obviously be the ability to gain a competitive advantage over our opponents. If that means we get to sign players that smaller market teams can't because our owner has more money to spend, it's tough to not want that for our team.

I tend to lean more toward being an NFL fan, though...until I read this...
Click to expand...

This would be the case working under the assumption that :

1)Bob is willing to release significantly more monies than in the past.

2)There are some smarts applied to whom the monies are applied.

With that said, advantage would only be gained if the Texans leave behind their past tendencies.
You can have all the money in the world available, but if you don't use it or don't use it wisely.................
 
I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.
 
Porky said:
ITo me, that philosphy that the owners developed - all for one, and one for all, is the primary reason why NFL surpassed baseball as America's favorite sport over the past few decades. You think Royals fans go into every year thinking they can beat the Yanks?
Click to expand...

Well, besides the fact that football is a thousand times better sport to watch than baseball...

CloakNNNdagger said:
This would be the case working under the assumption that :

1)Bob is willing to release significantly more monies than in the past.

2)There are some smarts applied to whom the monies are applied.

With that said, advantage would only be gained if the Texans leave behind their past tendencies.
You can have all the money in the world available, but if you don't use it or don't use it wisely.................
Click to expand...

This is true. I was not taking into account the various other factors that directly contribute to successful franchises...all of which we seem to be lacking most of the time... :thinking:

GP said:
I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.
Click to expand...

I'm torn on this one....at the end of the day, the NFL is an entertainment business, and the ultimate purpose of business is profit. It seems to be a welfare system for keeping markets that are no longer viable afloat...which I'm fundamentally opposed to in regular life, so it's tough to justify here...

Plus, when we lost the Oilers, I did not see fans from other cities giving a rat's ass about Houston football fans. If anything, they ridiculed our city, so I'm honesty reaching a cynic's attitude and saying eff them, too. Karma is a *****, as they might find out really soon.

Especially the Bills...did I mention SCREW THE BILLS??!!!

So, maybe I'm not so torn about it... :fingergun:
 
GP said:
I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.
Click to expand...

And the old Oiler fan in me wouldn't mind seeing that one bit. :foottap: After what their team did to us to make sure they were able to move, I'm all for it. I don't ever wish this on any fan but I wouldn't mind it for Buffalo, Tenn, Pittsburgh and Dallas with Indy really being close (once Manning is gone I'm sure I'll want them to stay though).
 
Johns Clayton reports that NFL owners have been told by league to be prepared to vote on new CBA between 3:30 and 5:30p.m.
 
@AlbertBreer saying it would take $35 mill a day out of owners offer if recert delays process. Messages being delivered.
Click to expand...

Owners laying some old time smack down. "Sign the paper...NOW!"
 
In every day life, I am right with DB. And I can understand the Bills hate. But the NFL is a business entity unto itself. It's not the same as company A competing with Comany B. It's more like the Scranton office competing with the Eerie PA office. I mean who sells the most paper?

If you owned lets say Office Max and you had put some stores in a few smaller markets, might you not expect the profit from the stores in Houston to help keep the stores in Buffalo running, at least too a certain extent?

Maybe I am a traditonalist, but I don't want to see any fan go through losing a team. I really don't. I remember how crushed I was when Bud took football from Houston, and whether its Buff, Jacksonville, or yes even Possum Holler, I have empathy toward my fellow fans out there, and I think this would definetely lead to some of these smaller markets moving or even folding over time.
 
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Our own @SportsLawGuy explaining it on the air now ... Reforming of union could take place electronically, and happen quickly.

@JasonLaCanfora
Jason La Canfora
On the issue of NFLPA recertification, people I speak to believe that could be done in a matter of hours, not days. Shouldn't be big delay
 
Allstar said:
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Our own @SportsLawGuy explaining it on the air now ... Reforming of union could take place electronically, and happen quickly.

@JasonLaCanfora
Jason La Canfora
On the issue of NFLPA recertification, people I speak to believe that could be done in a matter of hours, not days. Shouldn't be big delay
Click to expand...

I saw those tweets also. But I keep thinking about how the process has gone thus far..........shoulda, woulda, coulda............
 
D Smith about to address the media in less than 5 minutes on NFLN.

Edit: JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
I'm told De Smith will be speaking briefly to clear up a procedural issue. No major news expected
 
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.
 
Allstar said:
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.
Click to expand...

That legal analyst said they need to get 1% of their original membership to agree for them to recertify. That's like... 19 people?

That shouldn't be hard to do.

But... that raises the question, if you get 19 people to re-up, so to speak, does that mean that you only need 50%+1 of those guys who've agreed to be in the union to agree to the CBA?

EDIT: It wasn't 1%, it was 51%. I misheard.
 
I took his speech as just another negotiation tactic. He's threatening the owners to let this process linger.
 
CullenJenkins Cullen Jenkins
I find it amazing how as a player I am watching espn to get info instead of being updated by someone. Reporters know more than we do.
Click to expand...

BobMcGinn Bob McGinn
by SI_JimTrotter
A player representative estimated today that 10-12 #NFL teams have openly flouted lockout rules by contacting agents regarding free agents.
Click to expand...
 
Allstar said:
CullenJenkins Cullen Jenkins

I find it amazing how as a player I am watching espn to get info instead of being updated by someone. Reporters know more than we do.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that the reporters are there reporting for a 24/7 sports network and he's presumably at home. I get his point though, so far I haven't heard DeMaurice Smith say, "Hold on folks, I gotta call Cullen first" and it made me wonder too. :spin:
 
Allstar said:
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.
Click to expand...

How the eff do they not already know what they want to do? That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard. The lockout has been going on for 100+ days. Whoever was/is in charge of planning this thing out should be fired! It just seems to me like they would have already had A, B, and C mapped out in the event of agreeing to the new CBA. Schmucks....:foottap:
 
All I know is if something goes wrong right here, right now, the fans rage will be heard unlike anything we've seen thusfar maybe from any work stoppage in any sport. That would be dangling the carrot too close to a hungry, pissed off bunch of fans.

create.gif
 
michaelombardi Michael Lombardi
I fully expect the players to vote on their call tonight.stay w/ NFLNet for details with @SportsLawGuy
 
Showtime100 said:
All I know is if something goes wrong right here, right now, the fans rage will be heard unlike anything we've seen thusfar maybe from any work stoppage in any sport. That would be dangling the carrot too close to a hungry, pissed off bunch of fans.

create.gif
Click to expand...

QFT!!! :aggressive:
 
GP said:
LOL. This is just the players jacking with the owners.
Click to expand...

Just to jack with the players, I'd hire nothing but scrubs and do the whole season that way. I'd watch it and go to every game just to spite those SOBs. That would show their asses who the boss is.
 
Porky said:
In every day life, I am right with DB. And I can understand the Bills hate. But the NFL is a business entity unto itself. It's not the same as company A competing with Comany B. It's more like the Scranton office competing with the Eerie PA office. I mean who sells the most paper?

If you owned lets say Office Max and you had put some stores in a few smaller markets, might you not expect the profit from the stores in Houston to help keep the stores in Buffalo running, at least too a certain extent?

Maybe I am a traditonalist, but I don't want to see any fan go through losing a team. I really don't. I remember how crushed I was when Bud took football from Houston, and whether its Buff, Jacksonville, or yes even Possum Holler, I have empathy toward my fellow fans out there, and I think this would definetely lead to some of these smaller markets moving or even folding over time.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with you, and like I mentioned, it was pure genius to initiate revenue sharing several decades ago. It was visionary on the part of Lamar Hunt, and certainly was a major contribution toward the growth and success of the league.

However, there has to be a certain point where a given franchise has some minimal financial support from the city/fans that it's based. I'm not sure what that number would be, but it would not be prudent for the NFL to carry a team whose fanbase simply does not provide the financial support required to sustain the operation.

While tradition is certainly admirable, the cold hard reality of economic viability must play an equal role. For instance, Buffalo is a dying city. My in-laws are from there, and they'll tell you that the population is dwindling year by year. At what point does the league admit that keeping a city in that location comes at too big of an economic cost? Jacksonville is another example, especially when they are tarping 20,000 seats (or whatever the number is right now).

Houston did not lose the Oilers because we did not support the team. We lost the Oilers because Bud was greedy and made the decision to move based purely on financial benefit to his bank account. He regretted the decision, later admitting that he should have let the Astros move first, but the fact that the NFL came back to H-town in a mere 5 years proves that this is a city that will financially support an NFL franchise. A decade of sold-out games proves it. Bud is a jackass, and I can't blame the move on fans or politicians. Fans and politicians are the ones that got things done and supported Bob McNair and the Texans, after all. Bud had no patience and let his greed kill the Oilers.

Cjeremy635 said:
How the eff do they not already know what they want to do? That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard. The lockout has been going on for 100+ days. Whoever was/is in charge of planning this thing out should be fired! It just seems to me like they would have already had A, B, and C mapped out in the event of agreeing to the new CBA. Schmucks....:foottap:
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.
 
Double Barrel said:
I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Couldn't have said it any better. I live for the 6 months out of the year that there's football, but I'd force myself to walk away from it if they keep this crap up. It's rediculous, greedy, and childish.....and I've had enough.
 
mortreport Chris Mortensen
Players will debate and discuss but certainly will recertify as a union, but want lockout lifted asap once they approve settlement tonight

mortreport Chris Mortensen
In nutshell, I do expect players to approve settlement but lockout could be delayed if owners insist on waiting for recertification process

GeorgeAtallah George Atallah
I'll continue the marathon analogy and say the last mile is the most painful...hang with us tweeps.
 
Double Barrel said:
I generally agree with you, and like I mentioned, it was pure genius to initiate revenue sharing several decades ago. It was visionary on the part of Lamar Hunt, and certainly was a major contribution toward the growth and success of the league.

However, there has to be a certain point where a given franchise has some minimal financial support from the city/fans that it's based. I'm not sure what that number would be, but it would not be prudent for the NFL to carry a team whose fanbase simply does not provide the financial support required to sustain the operation.

While tradition is certainly admirable, the cold hard reality of economic viability must play an equal role. For instance, Buffalo is a dying city. My in-laws are from there, and they'll tell you that the population is dwindling year by year. At what point does the league admit that keeping a city in that location comes at too big of an economic cost? Jacksonville is another example, especially when they are tarping 20,000 seats (or whatever the number is right now).

Houston did not lose the Oilers because we did not support the team. We lost the Oilers because Bud was greedy and made the decision to move based purely on financial benefit to his bank account. He regretted the decision, later admitting that he should have let the Astros move first, but the fact that the NFL came back to H-town in a mere 5 years proves that this is a city that will financially support an NFL franchise. A decade of sold-out games proves it. Bud is a jackass, and I can't blame the move on fans or politicians. Fans and politicians are the ones that got things done and supported Bob McNair and the Texans, after all. Bud had no patience and let his greed kill the Oilers.



I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.
Click to expand...

Your Jax analyis I can see because that town doesn't come out in support in strong numbers, but in Buffalo that isn't the case. While they don't have the population of a city like Houston and I realize that they are losing population, that fanbase is rabid and sells that stadium out yearly. What else should they or can they do? And let's not blame this all on the fans. The player salaries have risen dramatically and the cost of a ticket is out of reach of many of the very most rabid fans. If players and owners aren't satisified with the ticket sales, merchandise etc, I think the only place they need to look is their own mirrors. Enough of blaming the fans for your own greed.

In terms of the lockout and this certification crap - it's just that - crap. It's about to piss me off. It's so transparent its not even funny. Of course it won't take two weeks to recertify. My guess is it's done tomorrow via email or something.... but you guys are right. If they hold things up trying to squeeze every last penny out of the owners they are going to look greedy, petty and silly, and the NFL fanbase is going to turn on them in a hurry. If OTOH, they approve tonight, and recertify tomorrow I think the vast majority will be ready for some football and ready to forgive and forget both sides greed and the egos the size of Texas.
 
In other words, the players are scared that the owners won't end the lockout...so they want the lockout ended in order to justify re-certifying.

And the owners are equally paranoid that the players will take 2 weeks to re-certify rather than re-certify quickly.

Was there not a mother-lovin' way to write up the document so as to:

1. Get a vote by owners

2. Get a vote by players

3a. Present the new document for the CBA deal, with all signatures not being counted as "offical" until......

3b. Players re-certify, and

3c. Owners end lockout

And build into the agreement an amount of "damages" restitution for either side if either side dicks around and costs the other side time and/or money that would be deemed harmful to either side?????????

Bring it on down to Liquorville! Yeah!

snl-liquorville-275x155.jpg
 
GP said:
In other words, the players are scared that the owners won't end the lockout...so they want the lockout ended in order to justify re-certifying.

And the owners are equally paranoid that the players will take 2 weeks to re-certify rather than re-certify quickly.

Was there not a mother-lovin' way to write up the document so as to:

1. Get a vote by owners

2. Get a vote by players

3a. Present the new document for the CBA deal, with all signatures not being counted as "offical" until......

3b. Players re-certify, and

3c. Owners end lockout

And build into the agreement an amount of "damages" restitution for either side if either side dicks around and costs the other side time and/or money that would be deemed harmful to either side?????????

Bring it on down to Liquorville! Yeah!

snl-liquorville-275x155.jpg
Click to expand...

Priceless!
 
judybattista Judy Battista
Players Association wants players to sign physical union cards. They signed them to dissolve union; said players comfortable w/that process.
 
Porky said:
Your Jax analyis I can see because that town doesn't come out in support in strong numbers, but in Buffalo that isn't the case. While they don't have the population of a city like Houston and I realize that they are losing population, that fanbase is rabid and sells that stadium out yearly. What else should they or can they do? And let's not blame this all on the fans. The player salaries have risen dramatically and the cost of a ticket is out of reach of many of the very most rabid fans. If players and owners aren't satisified with the ticket sales, merchandise etc, I think the only place they need to look is their own mirrors. Enough of blaming the fans for your own greed.
Click to expand...

Over 30% of the Bills season tickets are folks from Toronto (which is why they are playing some of their home games in Toronto now). The city of Buffalo cannot economically support the team, much less build a new stadium to keep up with other NFL teams.

And then there is this: Buffalo Bills Attendance Drops Dramatically In 2010

"The report indicates that The Ralph was full of Bills fans at an 86.2 percent capacity this season. That's the second-lowest percentage in the AFC, ahead of just Oakland."

I'm not trying to advocate moving the Bills. What I am trying to figure out is where is the cut-off point for the NFL to financially support a franchise to keep it alive?

I agree about the greed. It's a capitalistic system, though, so part of the American economic landscape. And with the exception of taxpayer financed stadiums, I cannot be against a free market enterprise. The NFL is supply and demand at it's finest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top