Bob Slydell said:
Sure, close (well, 200 miles away) from NYC, who already has two NFL teams. You think NYC cares much about Buffalo football?
You were the one who was bringing up Buffalo as an example of a team that doesn't win.
Who's claiming that any NFL team is not making money? This isn't about teams not making money -- this is simply about a group of billionaires dividing up the billions amongst themselves.
Ralph Wilson didn't say he was voting against the agreement because he might lose money, BTW. He voted against it because he didn't understand the agreement in full and wanted more time. Granted, he's basically admitting that he doesn't understand what he's doing as an owner, which in and of itself is kind of scary, but I think you're going at Buffalo for no real reason.
And before you ask -- no, I'm not a Buffalo fan.
That last part is funny..lol
I brought up buffalo because they were 1 of 2 teams that voted no...when was the last time they won anything????
And again..he doesn't understand it...BAD OWNER!!
now yes there are 3 ny teams but there are millions more near there then what is near Denver.
here are a couple of messages from another boars I frequent...I am not alone in my thinking.
here is 1:
"Classic. Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are the only owners who voted against the CBA.
Is there a bigger joke of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals. Okay, are there five bigger jokes of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals?
Say you're an owner that spends as much as you can on players every year. You lobby to get a new stadium to increase revenues, then unpopularly sell the naming rights to the stadium - to increase revenues. You go out and get local tv stations into bidding wars to be able to claim local tv rights to your product - to increase revenues. You basically run it as a business.
Then you have Mike Brown, who traditionally puts the cheapest product on the field every year. He has the team headquarters under a freeway overpass. For years, players see playing for his franchise as Siberia. And when it comes to naming his stadium, he bypasses the tens of millions of dollars he can get and insists on having it named after his dad.
Yet other owners have to supplement this moron's business decisions with their hard work. Essentially, every team's top line is the same, but while some teams spend much more to try and make their product better, guys like Mike Brown shovel as much into their pockets as they can, at the expense of the League and their fans.
And then when it comes to vote on the CBA, he goes against the will of his very generous business partners and votes against it."
here is another
" Sure, but at what cost? With revenue sharing - especially revenue sharing post-CBA extension, it isn't neccesarily Mike Brown that has to pay for the stadium name. It's Pat Bowlen, and Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder, and Robert Kraft. So, while Mike Brown's desires as to who it gets named after may be novel, it's easy to make those decisions when you don't have to foot the bill.
It would be like me going to my neighbors and demanding that my front yard be named Athena Field after my recently-deceased English Bulldog, and then demanding that they all chip in to pay for a plaque and signage to announce it as such. That's just not the way it works."
