Bills Player Hates Playing In TO

[Lions4ever]

Buffalo Bills center expresses his dislike for playing in Toronto. Hopefully this series will go the way of the dodo bird.

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/press-cove ... ew-it.html

[Toppy Vann]

I like that player!!

[D]

he's right!

[sj-roc]

A collection of mostly recent headlines from Southern Ontario media on this series:

From 2008 when this series was first announced: More than 100,000 sign up for Bills tickets

Tor Star, Tue, Dec 4: Buffalo Bills: Organizers of Toronto series count on lower ticket prices to attract more fans

Nat Post, Tue, Dec 4: Toronto searching for better way to sell Bills’ visits

G&M, Fri, Dec 7: Buffalo Bills on the verge of selling out Toronto game for the first time

Tor Star, Fri, Dec 13: Bills in Toronto: A ‘home game’ in name only

Nat Post, Sat, Dec 15: Bills' relocation farther away than ever before

Tor Sun, Sat, Dec 15: Bills in Toronto series has been a flop

G&M, Sun, Dec 16: Changes are coming, but the Bills will be back (i.e., back in Toronto)

Tor Star, Mon, Dec 17: Bills in Toronto: Bumbling Bills made for Toronto

And re: the article from the OP, a follow-up report from Buffalo's NBC affiliate: Wood Stands by Toronto Comments (includes 90-sec video clip of Wood's comments)


Rogers had already begun spinning the lukewarm fan response to this series 4-1/2 years ago just as its first game wrapped, as per this Aug 2008 article in The Province: Looks deceiving in T.O. tilt

Excerpt:

... A source close to the situation said Rogers gave away thousands of tickets this week alone, papering the house to avoid embarrassment. As many as 15,000 tickets [out of the 48,434 announced attendance] were said to have been "distributed" in the past few days for free. It's an incredible number and, if true, could translate into losses of more than $4 million for one game.

But Rogers executive Adrian Montgomery, who is the general manager of this Bills in Toronto series, said there were not giveaways.

"We didn't hand out any tickets, there was no handing out of tickets," Montgomery said. "Rogers purchased small amounts of tickets so our charitable partners, like the United Way and the Canadian military, can take part in these games. That's something we're proud to do."

...

"It's very expensive to bring the NFL to Toronto," Montgomery said. "It's a premium event. There's not NFL games in Canada. We brought them. They're not happening 10 times a year like they are in the U.S. They're happening once, twice a year. So, it's a premium event and it's expensive. We're operating on a cost recovery basis in and around the games."

In fact, Montgomery said Rogers isn't even interested in making money in this NFL initiative.

"Rogers is not bringing the Bills up to Toronto to make money," he said. "What we've said from the very beginning is that we want to create a festival of football. We want to do something special for Toronto.

"There are far better ways for Rogers to make money than to bring the NFL here for a couple games. This is about giving back to the city of Toronto. This is about giving fans something they don't have. Regular-season NFL football has never been in this country before."

Montgomery said he was thrilled with the results of Thursday's game.

"It's way more than encouraging," he said. "We are ... in the middle of the Olympics, we're in the middle of a flooded summer where it rains every day and in a preseason game we have a packed stadium. How can that not be a great start to this series?"

If they want to get involved with football without the nuisance of making money, they could always buy the Argos.

[WestCoastJoe]

Toronto has a bad case of NFL envy.

But the fans are not there. This will really put a damper on any likelihood of the NFL getting into Canada.

Good on Rogers et al for their foolish dream ...

These wannabe guys would not give a dayum if their dream of NFL status killed a beautiful league, the CFL. They would be happy if they had their stupid NFL franchise, disregarding the other CFL cities which would become deprived of pro football.

[TheLionKing]

Grass is not always greener on the other side. Just ask Casey...

[Toppy Vann]

There are a lot of reasons the NFL can't move out of the USA unless and high on the list are the anti-trust exemptions that are granted by the Congress and which could be threatened if they pulled a move to flee a team to Toronto.

When it comes to broadcasting there have been numerous threats in the Congress such that where there is smoke there could be fire.

I believe the anti-trust exemption was to do the merger with the AFL successfully. Now the NFL has its limited anti-trust exemption related solely to allow the teams to work like a cartel and negotiate ONE deal for TV versus every team negotiating their own contracts. A cartel has more power.

I am sure I read that legislators who want teams in their states where there are none would move on the anti-trust exemption if they tried to move a franchise to Toronto or expand by a team there.

http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_u ... lekey=2108

Competition News

Why the NFL Says There’s No Crying ‘Antitrust!’ in Football

Monday, May 16, 2011

The recent National Football League (NFL) lockout has put a spotlight on federal antitrust law

The fear in the NFL would be to lose this type of claim by players led by Tom Brady and other players. Remember this stuff was not finalized in court but could have been and the NFL surely does not want that to happen as you cannot guarantee a win despite years and years of precedent cases from other business and industry.

Remember too the laws can be changed by an angry Congressman or Senator who has to go back home and tell the folks why they aren't getting a team but Toronto is getting one over the border.

Antitrust Claims

Specifically, the "Brady Bunch" complaint alleges that:

the NFL and its 32 separately-owned and independently operated teams jointly conspired and agreed "through a patently unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement" or "unilaterally-imposed set of anticompetitive restrictions on player movement, free agency, and competitive market freedom" to coerce the players "to agree to a new anticompetitive system of player restraints" that will economically harm the plaintiff football players, and
examples of the alleged anticompetitive agreements are the "lockout" that the players allege was "aimed at shutting down the entire free agent marketplace" and a boycott of the rookies and players currently under contract.

Here is what is at stake and why the NFL won't be moving a franchise north of the 49th any time soon:

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/co ... sp?id=1934

Inside the Pleadings: NFL Lawsuit A Primer In Antitrust Concepts
Michael Limrick

By: Michael Limrick - Partner, Bingham McHale

• What are the antitrust issues?[/b]

The specific NFL practices that are called out in the complaint are ones that will be very familiar to NFL fans:

The Lockout On March 12, the NFL announced it was “locking out” its players. In practice, this means that NFL teams are jointly agreeing not to pay players currently under contract, not to negotiate new contracts with players, not to open team training facilities to players, and not to conduct the 2011 pre-season or regular season. This, the complaint alleges, amounts to an unlawful group boycott that is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. The players filed a specific request for a preliminary injunction against the lockout.

The Draft Most NFL fans look forward to the Draft each year, and probably have no ideological objection to how it’s structured. Generally speaking, the worst team picks first, and so on until the Super Bowl champion makes the last selection. In antitrust language, though, this is a horizontal agreement among competitors to divide up a market and allocate exclusive rights to negotiate with and sign new players. Without a draft, each team would have to compete with the others to sign the best new players at market-driven prices.

The Salary Cap and Franchise Tags. Diehard fans know exactly how much room their team has under the salary cap to sign new players. They also know that their team’s best player won’t be able to move to another team, even after the expiration of their contract, if the team designates him as a “Franchise Player.” These practices, though, also come under scrutiny in the world of antitrust. What if players with expiring contracts were free to sign with whichever team they chose, at whatever compensation that team was willing to pay? (See Major League Baseball).

[D]

"There are far better ways for Rogers to make money than to bring the NFL here for a couple games. This is about giving back to the city of Toronto. This is about giving fans something they don't have. Regular-season NFL football has never been in this country before."

Giving to the city of Toronto and getting there cellular and cable customers across the country to pay for it! And even worse those CFL fans across the country could have eventually lost there teams had this been a success.

If you love your CFL team you should be boycotting any and all Rogers products that you can.

[South Pender]

Although containing some possibly valid points, Eric Wood's rant sounds like about what you might expect from an immature player who has just had his butt, along with those of his teammates, severely whupped. I wonder what his opinion of all of this would have been had the Bills won and won big! I think it's better, after a really embarrassing loss, for players to just keep quiet and buckle down to prevent a recurrence. Wood's assertion that "it sucked" applies especially well to the team's performance on Sunday, and his rant sounds like whining and excuse-making. Bad form in my opinion.

I don't see the NFL moving to Toronto, but all signs point to a re-up of this Bills-in-Toronto contract. It's business--and an extremely lucrative one for even the marginal players; maybe the Bills players should just get used to it.

[Tighthead]

Toppy, doesn't baseball have broader anti-trust legislation and a Canadian team?

I don't see how one or two disenchanted markets could sway Congress.

I don't see Rogers renewing. I think it was Ted's deal at heart, and he is dead. By all accounts it has made money for the Bills but not Rogers. I think it would have been moderately successful with:

1)reasonable prices
2)no exhibition games
3) a better Bills team
4) a less arrogant approach

1 and 4 are the fault of Rogers, 3 is beyond control but predictable, and 2 was likely the insistence of the Bills and the NFL.

In the early 90s, when the Bills were flying, Toronto was a huge Bills town, but that really fell off when the team did likewise. I think there are still a fair number of loyal Bills fans in toronto, but they likely prefer to make the trip to Buffalo, as opposed to the closer but ersatz experience. From all accounts, a game in Buffalo is a very good time.

I like going to Seahawks game, but it would definitely be watered down in Vancouver - I would always prefer to make the trip.

Other than LA, which has issues, I don't think there is an NFL-ready market in the US right now. I expect San Antonio would just be another Jacksonville.

[cromartie]

I expect San Antonio would just be another Jacksonville.

I disagree with this. San Antonio is a more diversified economy with considerably less college football competition and a built in location in the Alamo Dome.

[Toppy Vann]

Toppy, doesn't baseball have broader anti-trust legislation and a Canadian team?

I don't see how one or two disenchanted markets could sway Congress.

Yes, baseball is a huge anomaly as it dates back to the 1920s. But the NFL still has not hit all cities that would love a franchise.

You could be right. I just see when I Google some Congressmen getting uptight at the NFL. If a couple of US Senators who were powerful got upset based on fan pressure it is possible that the NFL could get issues there.

The teams in the USA move due to bad seat sales or issues about the local gov't not giving them what they want in a stadium.

The Canadian gov't might be forced to act something like the Private member's bill - Bill C-360 and make it a gov't bill which then would pass. I am sure the NFL would be told that there would be steps taken to protect the CFL. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... Id=5260879

I doubt that Peter Julian's bill is the right way to go but the intent is there as was Sen. Larry Campbells's bill in the Senate and the other ones that got to first reading.

You can vote on his bill here: http://www.democratize.ca/?s=10:7&bill=196

This keeps coming up but not acted upon as I suspect there is little belief any Act is needed to keep out the NFL.

41st Parliament, 1st Session
June 2, 2011 - Present
Text of the Bill
Latest Publication
All Published Versions
C-360
An Act to support Canadian professional football
Short Title
Canadian Football Act
Sponsor
Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster)
Last Stage Completed
Introduction and First Reading in the House of Commons (2011-11-25)
Progress:


Status of the Bill
Status of the Bill



House of Commons
First Reading

http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/post/support- ... l-canadien

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... 00&File=19 < bill is here.

SUPPORT CANADIAN FOOTBALL

OTTAWA- Peter Julian, M.P. (Burnaby-New Westminster) today reintroduced his bill C-360, An Act to support Canadian Professional Football.

[Lions4ever]

I expect San Antonio would just be another Jacksonville.

I disagree with this. San Antonio is a more diversified economy with considerably less college football competition and a built in location in the Alamo Dome.

Yes, I agree. I think SA would be a very successful NFL city.