Skip to content

Roski’s group says they’re not thinking Plan B, yet

-2 Reuters

Last night, we posted an item regarding a recent article in the San Gabriel Valley Times, in which City of Industry Mayor David Perez suggested that would-be L.A. stadium developer Ed Roski is considering other plans for the place on which the stadium would be built.  Team Roski takes issue with that contention.

“Our 600 acre plan entails a stadium and a retail center,” a representative of Majestic Realty, the company Roski owns.  “Our plans have always included both.  Majestic is starting to receive significant interest from retail partners to be part of that development.  It isn’t a question of whether we will build both a stadium and a retail center.  The only question is which one comes first.”

Meanwhile, sports consultant Marc Ganis, who has worked with the NFL and the teams in the past, has said that Roski’s proposal is closer to coming to fruition than the rival project backed by AEG.  “There is more fizzle to the downtown L.A. initiative,” Ganis recently told the Whittier Daily News. “But the Industry plan has more certainty and is more of the traditional football option.”

We don’t know whether Ganis currently is doing any consulting for the NFL.  By helping keep the Roski project seem more viable at a time when the AEG proposal is gaining more steam, Ganis is at a minimum doing the NFL a favor.

The league’s best interests are served by having two competitive projects duke it out as long as possible, which will allow the NFL ultimately to leverage the best deal.  That’s why AEG would love to score a knockout now — and why Roski would love to do the same.  The longer this goes, the better the deal the NFL will be able to extract from the group that ultimately secures the privilege of hosting (and possibly owning part of all of) an NFL team.

Permalink 39 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
39 Responses to “Roski’s group says they’re not thinking Plan B, yet”
  1. traevin says: Aug 31, 2011 8:31 PM

    “Roski’s group says they’re not thinking Plan B, yet”

    _____________________________________________

    Isn’t Plan B a form of birth control?

  2. jstorm6 says: Aug 31, 2011 8:36 PM

    Get Tebow on the team and call them the L.A God Squad.Then watch the savior turn water into wine and take them to the top of the mountain.

  3. thespeaker08 says: Aug 31, 2011 8:38 PM

    As if we haven’t heard enough business men squabbling over something football related this summer.

  4. xsorethumbx says: Aug 31, 2011 8:42 PM

    according to their wiki page

    Possibly as a result of its sparse population base, City of Industry is also home to an unusual number of strip clubs, including the headquarters of the Spearmint Rhino chain.

  5. scudbot says: Aug 31, 2011 8:47 PM

    Because California is the Promised Land for NFL teams. LA lost three, San Francisco is an assault waiting to happen and San Diego gets blacked out.

  6. noodlecbs says: Aug 31, 2011 8:57 PM

    L.A. Vikings-thumbs up, L.A. Jaguars-thumbs down

  7. SmackSaw says: Aug 31, 2011 9:03 PM

    Here we go again.

  8. radrntn says: Aug 31, 2011 9:04 PM

    it’s tough to be a billionare.

  9. dogsweat1 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:07 PM

    With the Rose Bowl open for NFL Buisness in 2012, you can bet two teams will be flocking there after this season!

    Vikings are one.

    Raiders?

  10. dannymac17 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:10 PM

    Dean and Ed are good friends.

  11. fatasscarl420 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:10 PM

    Who gives a crap?

    Let’s just get this season started, enough with all this nonsense.

  12. joelvis72 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:46 PM

    I prefer this LA stadium’s design: dug into a hill. Also lots of strip clubs would definitely make it a popular Super Bowl host city.

  13. maddenboy says: Aug 31, 2011 9:49 PM

    Also, the longer it takes to get a team in LA, the more leverage the NFL has against cities like Minnesota.

    “Oh, dont MAKE me move to LA. You dont want that, do you?”

  14. laxer37 says: Aug 31, 2011 9:54 PM

    This we know for sure, LA will get an NFL team.

    What remains to be seen is where that team will move to after LA fan gets bored with their new team after a couple years. Again.

    How many times are they going to force feed that city with an NFL team before they realize LA fan has the attention span of a four year old.

  15. recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 10:23 PM

    @ laxer37:

    “What remains to be seen is where that team will move to after LA fan gets bored with their new team after a couple years. Again. How many times are they going to force feed that city with an NFL team before they realize LA fan has the attention span of a four year old.”

    I guess one should ignore 48 years of LA Rams history, that is if you are 12 years old and think the world only started when you came into it.

  16. recon163 says: Aug 31, 2011 10:34 PM

    @ dannymac17:

    “Dean and Ed are good friends.”

    As are Ed and Phillip. They once tried to build a new football stadium in the South Park area of LA together.

  17. footballfan15 says: Aug 31, 2011 10:55 PM

    Well, if Minnesota can’t (or won’t) build a new stadium, then move the Vikings to LA and give them a new nickname. At least their colors would be the same as another Minnesota transplant that moved out there a few decades ago (The Lakers)…lol

  18. slawsc says: Sep 1, 2011 12:47 AM

    Why isn’t this article linked as a Latest Stories for the Bucs and Dolphins? They will have less fans than the Jags this year, for the second year in a row….

  19. hoodheisman says: Sep 1, 2011 1:49 AM

    The overwhelming majority of LA taxpayers don’t want to subsidize any part of an NFL football stadium. Not a single NFL owner is willing to give up any equity to either of these real estate developers. Last time I checked, both of New York’s football teams are still playing in a stadium in New Jersey…. Obviously I see no red flags here.

  20. pabillsfan says: Sep 1, 2011 8:40 AM

    You guys seriously need to stop tagging the Bills on this.

  21. The Doctor says: Sep 1, 2011 8:42 AM

    Bring the Rams back to LA. Keep the Vikings in Minnesota.

  22. nationalmediacansuckit says: Sep 1, 2011 8:47 AM

    Ok, we get it. L.A. is getting a team. When it actually happens or when a team is announced then that will be news. These meaning articles just proves the agenda that is being pushed here from the powers that be.

  23. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 9:20 AM

    @ hoodheisman:

    “Not a single NFL owner is willing to give up any equity to either of these real estate developers.”

    And you know this how? Did you get a chance to speak to all 31 owners? (I will assume you didn’t bother calling every single Packer stockholder.)

  24. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 10:07 AM

    @ nationalmediacansuckit:

    “These meaning articles just proves the agenda that is being pushed here from the powers that be.”

    This cracks me up. According to you, PFT should not report on any goings on in LA until the day that a team announces it is moving here? Why? Because it bothers you?

    I see no agenda other than PFT passing along NFL business news to interested fans. Some of which would like to see a team in LA.

  25. stanmackley says: Sep 1, 2011 3:32 PM

    seriously, why is buffalo tagged here????

  26. nationalmediacansuckit says: Sep 1, 2011 4:08 PM

    @recon163

    No, you crack me up. I realize that the L.A. thing is exciting to you, but it’s a pretty boring topic. Daily updates on the progress. Seriously. A little played out. But hey cheers to you.

  27. williebeaman says: Sep 1, 2011 5:06 PM

    Rams aren’t moving back. Not with Kroenke as the new owner. He’s a Missouri guy.

    Plus w/ the best young QB in the league, their future is bright right where they are.

  28. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 9:00 PM

    @ nationalmedia:

    “I realize that the L.A. thing is exciting to you, but it’s a pretty boring topic.”

    Must not be that boring as you to continue to read the stories and take the time to offer your opinion.

    Let me know when you are asked to manage content here. I am sure it will be any day now.

  29. gobills716 says: Sep 2, 2011 3:06 AM

    A mall and a football stadium…now that’s the NFL in Southern California.

  30. nationalmediacansuckit says: Sep 2, 2011 7:48 AM

    @recon163
    So is this where you usually trade little jabs back and forth on here? Sorry sir, but have fun with that with someone else.

  31. recon163 says: Sep 2, 2011 12:10 PM

    @ gobills716:

    “A mall and a football stadium…now that’s the NFL in Southern California.”

    Yeah having clientele with money opens up lots of opportunity for new revenue ideas.

    BTW: How did the census work out for the dying city of Buffalo? Did you guys lose 2 or 3 congressional seats?

  32. recon163 says: Sep 2, 2011 12:12 PM

    @ nationalmedia:

    “So is this where you usually trade little jabs back and forth on here? Sorry sir, but have fun with that with someone else.”

    No barbs at all, just noting the obvious.

  33. EJ says: Sep 2, 2011 1:01 PM

    H E double hockey sticks

    H-ll no, we won’t go,
    roots too strong in Buffalo!!!!

    Go Bills!!!!

  34. reed83 says: Sep 3, 2011 5:56 PM

    recon163:
    The city of LA has had 2 NFL teams move and a struggling Dodgers franchise and the city wants to bring in another NFL team? The city has had their chances on many occassions & failed. When are they going to realize LA is only a basketball city & nothing else. If the city really wanted a franchise they should’ve supported the two teams they had. Just stating the obvious.

  35. recon163 says: Sep 3, 2011 6:33 PM

    @ reed83:

    “Just stating the obvious.”

    It is only obvious if your attention spam does not extend past six months. 

    “The city of LA has had 2 NFL teams move…”

    Yes they have and both moved for the same reason as every other team, an inadequte stadium. Now as you know the obvious is often a function of numerous issues and circumstances. Are you aware of all the things which make up the obvious lack of an NFL team in LA? Care to discuss?

    “and a struggling Dodgers franchise…”

    What is funny about this is that it is the Dodger fans who are sending the signal that they are not happy with the ownership, but the ignorant take that to mean the team is struggling. BTW: the team is still on track to draw 2.5 million instead of 3 million. Yeah …. We are struggling alright. How many MLB franchises wish they could sell 2.5 million tixs?

    “The city has had their chances on many occassions & failed.” 

    You do realize the Rams were here for 48 years? And how do you define many?

    “If the city really wanted a franchise they should’ve supported the two teams they had.”

    If you mean by support, build a stadium for the owner using public money, then I am afraid LA just isn’t going to do that. We are not a small city that needs affirmation through our sports franchises. And as such we are not going to place ourselves in debt so an owner can get wealthier on our dime.

    How extensive is your knowledge of the business of the NFL? I recommend you read “Sports, Jobs, and Taxes” as a start. I will be here to discuss when you are ready.

  36. reed83 says: Sep 3, 2011 11:36 PM

    Recon163:
    Yeah the Rams where in LA from 46-94. I don’t care how long they where there, they are not there now. The Rams moved because of the city of LA. The city did not want to approve a publicly financed stadium for them which forced the move.

    The Raiders seated 92,000, but only half would show up. Bo Jackson even bought 9,000 tickets for a playoff game & offered to give them away. I’m sorry but if your team cannot sell out for a home playoff game and support your team then that city does not deserve a football team ( my opinion).

    So the Dodgers sold 2.5 million tickets, but barely had money for payroll & had to file bankruptcy! Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Lol!

    You could build a stadium in LA & once the going gets tough the fans abandon the team. So LA gets a team & then what. After 10 years they will lose interest or if they start losing the fans run them out of town. Its already happened twice, how many more opportunities does your city need? Sure other fans are not happy with their teams owner, but they are loyal. I can’t stand Ralph Wilson, but us fans are loyal. We can continue to wheather the storm.

  37. recon163 says: Sep 4, 2011 1:02 AM

    @ reed83:

    “Yeah the Rams where in LA from 46-94. I don’t care how long they where there, they are not there now. The Rams moved because of the city of LA. The city did not want to approve a publicly financed stadium for them which forced the move.”

    I think I said that didn’t I? Yep, sure did. Thank you for acknowledging that what was obvious is actually a reality based on circumstances.

    So, is your argument that the city should ignore city needs to make a millionaire even richer by building him/her a stadium at the expense of the general public? I am sorry that LA doesn’t live up to your expectations, but we aren’t going to do that. Maybe that is OK in Buffalo, but not here.

    Is that how you measure loyalty? Take from school lunch programs to build a stadium? Take from elder care programs to build a stadium? Force new taxes on the whole city so that 76k can go to a NFL game? I see Erie County provides $7 mill to the Bills every year, but gets $6 mill in tax receipts. We don’t work that way here.

    We are a big city, we have done just fine without the NFL and they have done fine without us. Can your city survive a loss of the Bills franchise? We thrived and grew. How would Buffalo fare?

    “I’m sorry but if your team cannot sell out for a home playoff game and support your team then that city does not deserve a football team ( my opinion).”

    Well your opinion means what to whom? Exactly. I am sure the whole of the NFL withers at your opinion.

    “So the Dodgers sold 2.5 million tickets, but barely had money for payroll & had to file bankruptcy! Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Lol!”

    Dodgers have an exceptionally bad owner who has driven the team into bankruptcy. Well known, well documented. Would you like a link to the many, many stories about it?

    You stated it was because of a lack of fan support. That is obviously not the case, is it?

    “You could build a stadium in LA & once the going gets tough the fans abandon the team.”

    You mean that less fans will show up? Yes that is true. But then again that is true across the league isn’t it? Let’s take a look at some numbers….
    Buffalo Attendance by percentage of stadium filled:
    2010: 87% 4-12
    2008: 98% 7-9
    2006: 92% 7-9
    2004: 97% 9-7
    And I found this nugget from 2001 when the Bills went 3-13, “After selling out 31 of their previous 35 games, the Bills face the prospect of competing before 10,000 empty seats for the second straight game when they play Seattle this Sunday.”

    I thought you sold out every game, the whole city was there, and all that rah rah stuff. It looks like attendance fluctuates just like the rest of the league. Buffalo ain’t so special after all.

    “After 10 years they will lose interest or if they start losing the fans run them out of town.”

    Oh please. Based on your postings, you can barely make sense of what is happening now and you think you can predict the future? You have no idea what will happen in the next ten years do you?

    It is all about money, not fan loyalty. You are easily replaced in a new town and a new stadium.

    The Bills ranked 28th in value last year at $799 mill. The new owner can keep them in Buffalo at that valuation or can move to a new stadium in LA and see that value jump to $1.5 billion. What would you do?

    Estimates show the Bills profit at $28 mill in 2009. Which is a great profit when you bought the team in 1961 for thousands. However it is 2011 and an NFL franchise is worth anywhere from $800 mill – $1 billion. What is the ROI on that? Is making $28 million a year for something you just spent a billion dollars on OK?

    “Its already happened twice, how many more opportunities does your city need?”

    I am sorry that LA is going to get another team, despite your thoughts and opinions. Why is LA going to get another team? 17 million people that is why. An entertainment industry with billions of dollars in capital. A large population with lots of disposable income who can easily afford suites and club seats. And a new stadium with lots of non shared revenue streams. That is why LA is going to get another team.

    “Sure other fans are not happy with their teams owner, but they are loyal.”

    Really and that is important in what way? The Baltimore fans were loyal to the Colts. Why did they leave? Money. New stadium. Were Browns fans loyal? Were Oilers fans loyal? Rams fans? Cardinal fans? And the list goes on……..

    “I can’t stand Ralph Wilson, but us fans are loyal.”

    You shouldn’t hate Ralph. When he goes to the NFL meeting in the sky, it is very likely the Bills move on. You should be clicking rosary beads at a frantic pace that he lives forever.

    And maybe you are loyal, but are there enough of you to make the team profitable? I would argue the answer is no. If not then why have games in Toronto?

  38. reed83 says: Sep 4, 2011 4:37 PM

    I think I said that didn’t I? Yep, sure did. Thank you for acknowledging that what was obvious is actually a reality based on circumstances.

    I backed tracked to the exact years to demonstrate that I already knew the history of the Rams without you needing to mention it and that those years in LA are gone and there was no need to mention them. Although if I didn’t know that fact I could have read a posting you placed earlier. It seems like your main argument was did you know that the Rams where in LA for 48 years.

    So, is your argument that the city should ignore city needs to make a millionaire even richer by building him/her a stadium at the expense of the general public? I am sorry that LA doesn’t live up to your expectations, but we aren’t going to do that. Maybe that is OK in Buffalo, but not here. Is that how you measure loyalty? Take from school lunch programs to build a stadium? Take from elder care programs to build a stadium? Force new taxes on the whole city so that 76k can go to a NFL game? I see Erie County provides $7 mill to the Bills every year, but gets $6 mill in tax receipts. We don’t work that way here.

    Last year the city of Los Angeles was handed $ 594 million in stimulus money to create new jobs. After a partial audit it was discovered that $71 million went to the Department of Public Works. With that money they created 8 jobs. The Department of Transportation (DOT) received $40 million and they created 9 jobs. The DOT spent 9 million installing light bulbs in traffic lights. Minus labor costs it amounted to $5,000 per light. To make things worse the cost for the left turn arrow cost $61,500 to replace per traffic light! So you tell me where did that money go? Don’t act like your city is so honest. Los Angeles is extremely corrupt and you’re right they wouldn’t take money away from elder care programs and school lunch programs to build a new stadium. But they would if they could put more money in their own pocket.

    We are a big city, we have done just fine without the NFL and they have done fine without us. Can your city survive a loss of the Bills franchise? We thrived and grew. How would Buffalo fare?

    I have to agree with you on this one. You are fine without an NFL team so leave it at that. Could Buffalo survive without the loss of the Bills franchise? Probably not. That’s one reason to keep the franchise in Buffalo. The economy is tough enough as it is, and the Bills leaving would have a ripple effect on the city’s economy. But that doesn’t matter to the people in LA does it? All they care about is money and doesn’t care about what it would do to another cities economy. What would you honestly say to the all the people who would lose jobs if the team left, that would make them feel better?

    Well your opinion means what to whom? Exactly. I am sure the whole of the NFL withers at your opinion.

    My opinion and others matter. It mattered enough for Al Davis to leave LA. If you where an owner it wouldn’t bother you one bit that your LA team which has 17 million people could not sell out home playoff games? As a businessman you mean to tell me that it wouldn’t bother you?

    Dodgers have an exceptionally bad owner who has driven the team into bankruptcy. Well known, well documented. Would you like a link to the many, many stories about it?
    You stated it was because of a lack of fan support. That is obviously not the case, is it?

    Um yeah it is. Ralph Wilson, and Mike Brown are bad owners, but they never had to file bankruptcy. So you’re saying that the city of Los Angeles would rather run a professional team out of town than hope that things get better?

    You mean that less fans will show up? Yes that is true. But then again that is true across the league isn’t it? Let’s take a look at some numbers….
    Buffalo Attendance by percentage of stadium filled:
    2010: 87% 4-12
    2008: 98% 7-9
    2006: 92% 7-9
    2004: 97% 9-7
    And I found this nugget from 2001 when the Bills went 3-13, “After selling out 31 of their previous 35 games, the Bills face the prospect of competing before 10,000 empty seats for the second straight game when they play Seattle this Sunday.”
    I thought you sold out every game, the whole city was there, and all that rah rah stuff. It looks like attendance fluctuates just like the rest of the league. Buffalo ain’t so special after all.

    What I mean is that fewer fans will show up and continue to be absent even when they rebound from losing seasons. So you did you’re research on the Bills and the best stats you could give me was from 2001? The Bills stadium holds over 80,000 seats and 10,000 people didn’t show up when they went 3-13. In 1994 the Raiders stadium held over 96,000 and 48,000 people did not show up even though they went 9-7 and made the playoffs. The attendance might fluctuate, but never to a degree that the Bills would need to move. In 2010 the attendance was at 87%. If 87% of people showed up to Raiders games then they never would have moved. By the way you responded to all my thoughts accept on the explanation of why your cities attendance was only at 50%. When that happens it’s obvious it’s time to relocate.

    Oh please. Based on your postings, you can barely make sense of what is happening now and you think you can predict the future? You have no idea what will happen in the next ten years do you?

    But you can right? Based on your posting you know exactly what is going to happen if a team moves to LA. You have no idea what will happen in the next ten years do you?

    Estimates show the Bills profit at $28 mill in 2009. Which is a great profit when you bought the team in 1961 for thousands. However it is 2011 and an NFL franchise is worth anywhere from $800 mill – $1 billion. What is the ROI on that? Is making $28 million a year for something you just spent a billion dollars on OK? The Bills ranked 28th in value last year at $799 mill. The new owner can keep them in Buffalo at that valuation or can move to a new stadium in LA and see that value jump to $1.5 billion. What would you do?

    There are 4 potential buyers for the Bills and 3 out of 4 bidders are willing to keep the team in Buffalo despite your numbers. So 75% of people who are willing to buy Bills want them in Buffalo and I would to.

    I am sorry that LA is going to get another team, despite your thoughts and opinions. Why is LA going to get another team? 17 million people that is why. An entertainment industry with billions of dollars in capital. A large population with lots of disposable income who can easily afford suites and club seats. And a new stadium with lots of non shared revenue streams. That is why LA is going to get another team.

    To be honest I really don’t mind if they actually got another team, but it’s the fact that they are willing to wrestle one away from another city, that bothers me. If a city doesn’t want their team (based on lack of attendance) fine I understand that, but taking one away from a city where they love their team would suck (not just the Bills). I’m sure it was the case with you when the Rams and Raiders moved away.

    You shouldn’t hate Ralph. When he goes to the NFL meeting in the sky, it is very likely the Bills move on. You should be clicking rosary beads at a frantic pace that he lives forever.

    Who said I hated him. I can’t stand the guy, but I wish him no harm and I would not rejoice when he passes. However, I’m sure that the city of LA would, because it’s just business. No compassion for those they would step on. Why would I click rosary beads I’m not Catholic. I can move on if the Bills moved, I don’t live there, but it would take the city’s economy sometime to recover if they are left without their football team.

    And maybe you are loyal, but are there enough of you to make the team profitable? I would argue the answer is no. If not then why have games in Toronto?

    You mean to tell me that if Canada was willing to pay a lot of money to your franchise to play a few games there you would pass that up?

  39. recon163 says: Sep 4, 2011 7:17 PM

    @ reed83:

    “It seems like your main argument was did you know that the Rams where in LA for 48 years.”

    Not my main argument at all, your writing indicated that we had been given some “one time chance” to make the NFL succeed here. As noted, that was not the case. LA had a very long history with the NFL. Not my fault you can’t write.

    “Last year the city of Los Angeles was handed $ 594 million in stimulus money . . .”

    So your point is that we should have taken the stimulus money to build a stadium?

    “Don’t act like your city is so honest.”

    Never said it was. I just stated that we won’t use the publics money to build a stadium. Why is that such a problem for you? As I asked earlier, is your measure of loyalty dependent on how in debt the city is willing to go to keep the team in town? That seems to be a sticking point for you. Why? Why do you insist LA does things the way you think?

    “I have to agree with you on this one. You are fine without an NFL team so leave it at that.”

    Well that isn’t going to happen, so you might as well get used to it.

    “Could Buffalo survive without the loss of the Bills franchise? Probably not. That’s one reason to keep the franchise in Buffalo.”

    News flash for you, that is the last thing on a NFL owners mind. And if your town can’t survive, isn’t that a negative statement about your town? Are you so fragile that the departure of an NFL franchise will break your city?

    “My opinion and others matter. It mattered enough for Al Davis to leave LA.”

    You really don’t know anything about why the Raiders moved do you? Google Raiders v. NFL. The reasons are clearly stated there. As I noted earlier you just don’t have the depth of knowledge on this subject. And I don’t see anywhere a mention of you in the courts testimony, so maybe your opinion isn’t as important as you think.

    “Um yeah it is. Ralph Wilson, and Mike Brown are bad owners . . .”

    I am sorry but you are a complete idiot. Neither Ralph nor Mike have taken millions of dollars in team revenue for personal expenditures. Neither of those two people have spent millions on owning numerous homes with no intention on living in them. The McCourt’s bought a multi-million dollar home just so they had a place to do laundry. Clearly, you do not know of what you speak of. You should spend some time learning about the McCourts before you come on here and try to lecture me.

    And quite frankly putting Ralph Wilson in the class of Frank and Jamie McCourt is insulting to Mr. Wilson and it should also be equally insulting to every Bills fan.

    “What I mean is that fewer fans will show up and continue to be absent even when they rebound from losing seasons.”

    Really? History doesn’t hold that to be true. Here go back to the 1987 season and tell me what happened to the Raiders attendance numbers after that.

    “So you did you’re research on the Bills and the best stats you could give me was from 2001? The Bills stadium holds over 80,000 seats…”

    And you can’t do any research. The Bills stadium holds 73k and has since 1998. Come on, you can at least get basic facts correct. But this just proves my overarching point about you, you don’t have a clue about what you speak.

    “By the way you responded to all my thoughts accept on the explanation of why your cities attendance was only at 50%.”

    You want an explanation? Why? It won’t change your opinion one iota. Now here comes the part where you will say that LA should have paid anything to keep the team, and the fans were silly for not attending games. All you will do is note that LA should have given Al and Georgia everything they wanted, because after all that is what fans should do according to you. We should live and give for the team. As I noted before we don’t do that in LA. Let’s face it you have a code of fan conduct that you think we should all live by, but we disagree.

    “There are 4 potential buyers for the Bills and 3 out of 4 bidders are willing to keep the team in Buffalo despite your numbers.”

    When they actually bid, come back. Until that time it means nothing. Heck, I can announce a bid. It will come down to money. Who has the most and who has the best deal. Can Buffalo billionaires match the LA ones, that is what will matter.

    “To be honest I really don’t mind if they actually got another team, but it’s the fact that they are willing to wrestle one away from another city, that bothers me.”

    Oh but it doesn’t bother you that another city does that to LA? Hypocrite thou art.

    “If a city doesn’t want their team (based on lack of attendance) fine I understand that, but taking one away from a city where they love their team would suck (not just the Bills).”

    How can you say a city doesn’t want their team based on a lack of attendance? In places like J’Ville where they have 12% unemployment they may love the team, but don’t have the money to attend. Are you arguing that they should forego on other things to keep the team? Is that how love is measured? Go broke at home, don’t feed the kids, don’t save for education, but instead spend on the team? Wow you have a child’s set of priorities.

    “(LA has) No compassion for those they would step on.”

    Oh yes, compassion. On one hand you argue a city and the people in it should do everything it can to keep a team, but you want compassion when it comes to you losing your team. You have no compassion for anyone who doesn’t agree with your standards’ of fan behavior, why should anyone have compassion for you?

    Where is the compassion for the elderly when socked with a tax on goods so the NFL owner can have a new stadium? Where is the compassion for the programs that go wanting so that additional million or so can be sent over to the Bills? Please, don’t act like a victim.

    I combined two of your statements here, just to demo your ignorance and contradictions.

    “You mean to tell me that if Canada was willing to pay a lot of money to your franchise to play a few games there you would pass that up? . . . But that doesn’t matter to the people in LA does it? All they care about is money and doesn’t care about what it would do to another cities economy. What would you honestly say to the all the people who would lose jobs if the team left, that would make them feel better?”

    So it is Ok for Canada to make money, but not LA? It is OK for a new owner to care about money as long as they do it under your parameters of keeping the team in town regardless of the cost to the public?

    Can you make up your mind please? Either you are a hypocrite or exceptionally dense.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!