Skip to content

Key environmental groups support Farmers Field legislation

Press Conference Held To Annouce Name Of NFL Stadium In LA Getty Images

As the competing L.A. stadium projects continue to try to become the one that survives, the downtown proposal backed by AEG has secured a key boost from two major environmental groups.

California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez announced on Tuesday that the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California League of Conservation Voters support the legislation that would relocate a portion of the L.A. Convention Center and construct Farmers Field, a state-of-the-art multi-purpose venue that would host at least one NFL team.

“It was very important to me that this project and our legislation gain the support of such well-respected environmental champions,” Speaker Pérez said. “We have managed to produce a plan to bring economic prosperity and jobs to Los Angeles while maintaining our environmental standards by building one of the most environmentally conscious stadiums in the country.”

Environmental consciousness will be critical because, unlike Ed Roski’s proposal that would be constructed in the City of Industry, the Farmers Field project won’t get an exemption from certain types of environmental lawsuits.

Permalink 96 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Home, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams
96 Responses to “Key environmental groups support Farmers Field legislation”
  1. scudbot says: Sep 6, 2011 11:43 PM

    “It was very important to me that this project and our legislation gain the support of such well-respected environmental champions” who won’t buy tickets. Three teams went, three teams left. The Dodgers are bankrupt. Try moving a team to someplace in flyover country where it’ll be appreciated.

  2. trbowman says: Sep 6, 2011 11:50 PM

    I hope LA doesn’t get a team. LA fans are terrible and don’t deserve an NFL franchise.

  3. mypuppyfarted says: Sep 7, 2011 12:06 AM

    Who cares? Environmental lawsuits, multi purpose venues, Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters all add up to squat. The Raiders own the NFL rights to LA. Nobody else. If the NFL wants a team(s) in LA, the Raiders should have right of first refusal and the rest of the owners can try to negotiate with Al Davis.

  4. tatum064 says: Sep 7, 2011 12:14 AM

    California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez announced on Tuesday that the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California League of Conservation Voters support the legislation that would relocate a portion of the L.A. Convention Center

    translation; We’re broke, “Governator” left us with lint in the state budget, we need the revenue an NFL team would bring, regardless of our fickle fans…we’ll take Chargers, Vikings, Jags, Raiders, Bills and combine the UFL teams fold them and send them along too.

  5. recon163 says: Sep 7, 2011 12:15 AM

    That will give LA two viable stadium complexes with which to house an NFL team.

    If AEG gets the environmental exemption, somebody is going to lose a team within two years.

  6. cornellsteelers says: Sep 7, 2011 12:22 AM

    Oh boy, that seals it for me.

  7. favreforever says: Sep 7, 2011 12:58 AM

    “Hello, environmental agency? Do you support farmer’s fields?”.

    “Uhhh….yes…of course we do.”.

    “Thank you.”.

  8. greatminnesotasportsmind says: Sep 7, 2011 1:04 AM

    Ed: Hello, Zygi? This is Ed. Still don’t have your stadium?

    Zygi: No, Minnesota won’t build me one yet again.

    Ed: Still want to come here?

    Zygi: When and where do you want to meet to sign the papers?

    Ed: Wanna meet in LA?

    Zygi: I will take my jet and see you in 3 hours.

  9. cured76 says: Sep 7, 2011 1:15 AM

    Roski has been choking on AEG’s fumes for quite awhile now. I think AEG gets the stadium shovel-ready a month before the season ends.

  10. cosanostra71 says: Sep 7, 2011 1:56 AM

    saw this. great news hoping for more progress!

  11. vomitingliberals says: Sep 7, 2011 2:48 AM

    Evironmentalists suck. “Key environmentalists” suck even harder.

  12. gobills716 says: Sep 7, 2011 3:24 AM

    Please stop tagging the bills in the L.A. Stadium updates. Same for the rams and 49ers. Those three teams aren’t going anywhere

  13. GG Eden says: Sep 7, 2011 6:54 AM

    @ mypuppyfarted

    The Raiders don’t own the rights to LA…

    After relocating back to Oakland, the team sued the NFL for interfering with their negotiations to build a new stadium at Hollywood Park prior to the move. The Raiders’ lawsuit further contended that they had the rights to the Los Angeles market, and thus were entitled to compensation from the league for GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS by moving to Oakland. A jury found in favor of the NFL in 2001, but the verdict was overturned a year later due to alleged juror misconduct. In February 2005, a California Court of Appeal unanimously UPHELD THE ORIGINAL VERDICT.

  14. jimmysee says: Sep 7, 2011 7:26 AM

    CA is the state where things get done.

    MN is apparently the state where tea party nut jobs have the timid legislature in such a chokehold that it can’t even pass a 1/2% sales tax increase for this project without a costly voter “referendum” so its not their ass when those tea party losers howl at “higher taxes.”

  15. stanmackley says: Sep 7, 2011 8:12 AM

    Really, why are the Bills tagged on this story?

  16. smoothjimmyapollo says: Sep 7, 2011 8:23 AM

    “Three teams went, three teams left. The Dodgers are bankrupt. Try moving a team to someplace in flyover country where it’ll be appreciated.”

    The Dodgers are having financial troubles because of their owners’ ugly divorce, not because it’s a bad market for sports. For example, the Dodgers are currently 10th in baseball in attendance and they suck this year. The other LA baseball team is 5th in attendance. The football teams left because of crappy stadium situations, not because of a lack of fan support. In this era of NFL Sunday Ticket, Madden video games and fantasy football, you don’t think people will show up for an LA football team if it has guys like Adrian Peterson if the Vikings move or Maurice Jones-Drew if the Jags move? I bet they do. This isn’t soccer or the WNBA where the franchise might fail because people just don’t give a crap about the sport. This is the NFL. People will show up.

  17. recon163 says: Sep 7, 2011 9:28 AM

    @ stanmackley:

    “Really, why are the Bills tagged on this story?”

    Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts.

    Because their lease is expiring soon.

    Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson.

    Because Buffalo is a dying city.

    Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill.

  18. axespray says: Sep 7, 2011 10:21 AM

    trbowman says:Sep 6, 2011 11:50 PM
    “I hope LA doesn’t get a team. LA fans are terrible and don’t deserve an NFL franchise.”

    Can’t be any worse than the thousands of empty seats at a Viking’s/Jaguar’s home game.

  19. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Sep 7, 2011 10:27 AM

    Wow….. the ignorance of NFL fans who spout off about the NFL not being able to succeed in L.A. never ceases to amaze me. No team ever left L.A. because of fan support. The issue has always been bad stadiums and bad ownership. Those of you who think fans in L.A. don’t “deserve” a franchise can go take hike. We’re tired of having to dish out history lessons to you guys.

    Quick question for y’all… I was 9 years old when the Rams and Raiders left L.A. Even if fan support was the issue, it’s not like I would have been able to buy tickets and support those teams. There are millions of people here just like me who have grown up without a home team to root for. Why do we not deserve an NFL team? Did the fans in Cleveland and Houston deserve a team? Keep in mind that fan support is NOT the issue in L.A., just like it wasn’t for those cities.

    I guess the Rams were here for 48 years because no one went to the games. Right. It’s easy for people who have no concept about sports culture in SoCal to keep repeating the same old tired lies. How many of you haters have actually been to a game in L.A.? Again, this is just a sign of pure ignorance.

    P.S. Those of you who want to thumbs down this comment, feel free to prove me wrong and provide some evidence to support your ignorant attitude. A simple review of the Rams and Raiders wikipedia article should set you straight.

  20. scudbot says: Sep 7, 2011 10:51 AM

    LA Raiders: Tom Flores moved to the front office and was replaced by Denver Broncos offensive assistant coach Mike Shanahan. Shanahan led the team to a 7-9 season in 1988, and Allen and Jackson continued to trade places as the starting RB. Low game attendance and fan apathy were evident by this point
    ———————
    LA Rams: humiliating 30–3 defeat by division-rival San Francisco…The Rams never recovered from the humiliation. The first half of the 1990s featured losing records, no playoff appearances for the Rams and waning fan interest…The continued losing and uninspired play of the Rams further reduced the Rams fan base, which by 1994 had withered to the point where they were barely part of the Los Angeles sports landscape.
    ———————
    Apathy doesn’t happen in Pittsburgh. It didn’t happen to the Packers during the truly dismal post-Lombardi years. It doesn’t happen to the Redskins. It has happened multiple times in LA. If and when an LA team struggles to win for more than a few years, it’ll happen again.

  21. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Sep 7, 2011 11:34 AM

    @Scudbot

    Fan support for the Rams waned because everyone knew that Frontierre was purposely running the team into the ground to pave the way for a move to St. Louis. The fans felt betrayed after 40 plus years of having among the best attendance in the league, and rightly so.

    The Raiders fan support fell off because of rotating running backs? Try again. L.A. city council promised Al Davis a new stadium which didn’t happen so he picked up and moved. They were expected to fill the 90,000 seat Colosseum, pretty much impossible for most teams to pull of today, let alone in 1994 when the popularity of the NFL wasn’t anywhere near where it is today.

    0 for 2.

    Again, fan support was not the main issue for either or these teams leaving.

  22. dannymac17 says: Sep 7, 2011 11:40 AM

    i couldve sworn that the Raiders dont own nor does LA owe them anything.

    Chargers have the LA market. Which is funny, cause if a team other than the Chargers move to LA, it would kill the LA fanbase of theirs. Which in hindsight, they cant afford to do cause they barely sell out as it stands. Cant imagine the Chargers profiting with a team in LA. this isnt the early 90’s.

  23. dogsweat1 says: Sep 7, 2011 1:00 PM

    1. Los Angeles Raiders

    2. Los Angeles Vikings

  24. radrntn says: Sep 7, 2011 6:14 PM

    GG Eden says:
    Sep 7, 2011 6:54 AM
    @ mypuppyfarted

    The Raiders don’t own the rights to LA…

    After relocating back to Oakland, the team sued the NFL for interfering with their negotiations to build a new stadium at Hollywood Park prior to the move. The Raiders’ lawsuit further contended that they had the rights to the Los Angeles market, and thus were entitled to compensation from the league for GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS by moving to Oakland. A jury found in favor of the NFL in 2001, but the verdict was overturned a year later due to alleged juror misconduct. In February 2005, a California Court of Appeal unanimously UPHELD THE ORIGINAL VERDICT.
    _______________________________

    except ypu are forgetting the other lawsuit where Paul Tagilubue was called to the stand, and under direct questioning, and under oath , he stated the raiders paid for the right to LA, and own the rights to LA. Immediately after that statement the raiders dismissed the lawsuit. So one could say they loss walked away from that lawsuit, but won something else.

  25. NoHomeTeam says: Sep 7, 2011 6:54 PM

    “except ypu are forgetting the other lawsuit where Paul Tagilubue was called to the stand, and under direct questioning, and under oath , he stated the raiders paid for the right to LA, and own the rights to LA” [citation needed]

  26. recon163 says: Sep 7, 2011 7:33 PM

    “except ypu are forgetting the other lawsuit where Paul Tagilubue was called to the stand, and under direct questioning, and under oath , he stated the raiders paid for the right to LA, and own the rights to LA. Immediately after that statement the raiders dismissed the lawsuit. So one could say they loss walked away from that lawsuit, but won something else.”

    That is the same 2005 decision that determined the Raiders had no claim on LA.

    Are we done here?

  27. jimmylions says: Sep 8, 2011 12:18 AM

    Guys, don’t kid yourselves. When there is a billion-plus construction project, politicians see a big opportunity for graft! Elected officials in LA and Sacramento are dying to get this gravy train rolling. Anything else they say is bs to cover their tracks.

    It’s a safe bet that tickets to the see the NFL at the new LA stadium will be starting around $200. LA Times said that in SF and SD they currently go in the neighborhood of $150.

    The upside is that the spiffy new LA stadium will be another reminder to Jerry Jones that his own incompetence resulted in an overpriced, never-ending disaster story! That alone will make it all worth while!

  28. stanmackley says: Sep 8, 2011 7:27 PM

    @ recon163

    “Really, why are the Bills tagged on this story?”

    Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts. [CITATION NEEDED]

    Because their lease is expiring soon. [CITATION NEEDED]

    Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson. [Well known by whom??? you have connections to the city of BUF that nobody in there knows?? LOL]

    Because Buffalo is a dying city. [See Cleveland/Cincy/Detroit/Minneapolis/OAKLAND HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]

    Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill. [IF la even gets a team, you can bet your daily dinner of a 50 piece Mcnugget it wont be the BILLS. they are in Buffalo to stay]

  29. stanmackley says: Sep 8, 2011 7:30 PM

    @recon163

    you should become a business consultant. seriously.

  30. recon163 says: Sep 9, 2011 12:40 AM

    @ stanmackley:

    “Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts. [CITATION NEEDED]”

    Sure here ya go…..Forbes Business of Football 2010: Buffalo Bills #28
    2011: Buffal Bills #24

    32 teams in the league. Bills are in the bottom ten.

    “Because their lease is expiring soon. [CITATION NEEDED]”

    And one more from WGRZ:
    “The team’s lease with the county expires in the summer of 2013.”

    “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson. [Well known by whom??? you have connections to the city of BUF that nobody in there knows?? LOL]”

    Let’s pile on!

    I think this guy named Ralph Wilson said it let’s see oh yes here it is, “Wilson stated in an interview with Mark Gaughan of The Buffalo News that the team will be sold after not before he dies.”

    “Because Buffalo is a dying city. [See Cleveland/Cincy/Detroit/Minneapolis/OAKLAND HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]”

    Kick you while your dumb…sorry down….

    “Buffalo has made Forbes magazine’s list of what it calls the nation’s 10 fastest-dying cities.
    According to an article in Forbes’ new issue, New York state’s second largest city qualifies for the publication’s list because of its declining population and slow economic growth. ”

    “Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill. [IF la even gets a team, you can bet your daily dinner of a 50 piece Mcnugget it wont be the BILLS. they are in Buffalo to stay]”

    And then the coup de grace…..

    Considering your track record with facts, it is going to be mighty quiet on Bills Drive in the near future.

    Thanks for playing. Enjoy drinking out of a nasty bowling ball while it lasts.

  31. stanmackley says: Sep 10, 2011 11:54 AM

    @recon163
    now that you have put your facts out there for all to see, its a little confusing …

    It has been proven that :
    #1 The stadium Lease does indeed have an end date.
    #2 Ralph Wilson will not sell the team
    #3.. oh wait thats all you “proved”

    Now lets break it down in terms that are actually tangible, and arent speculative. The Bills and Erie County are intent on bringing a third partner, New York State, to the table, to help pay for renovations to keep the 38-year-old Ralph Wilson Stadium more relevant in the new NFL. The ENTIRE Erie County Delegation for the State Legislature of New York are content that a new lease will be signed and the state will kick in substantial $. Rep. Mark Shroeder, and Rep. Thomas Mazur, Sen. George Mazairz (whom is pro tem) and Sen. Mark Grisanti. All committed and all quoted as supporting the new lease and stadium renovations via Erie County Legislator Thomas J. Mazur in March RIGHT HERE http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article366615.ece

    Yes Buffalo is in bad shape nobody denies that. But failing to speak to the examples set by other failing cities out of your greasy Forbes magazine of Cleveland/Cincy/Detroit/Minneapolis/Oakland. WOOPSY did everyone forget about them????

    Your points are weak and based on nothing. forbes top ten list and the revenue figures place the bills in a bottom ten list YES, but what exactly does that indicate about a possible move to LA??
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING- the proven support is there to keep the team, they will sign a lease extension- so the only avenue to take now is for you to continue your genius speculation on what you “think” Ralphy “might ” do with the team ownership in his last years.
    lol. you can get back to collecting santa clause figurines off of ebay.

  32. recon163 says: Sep 10, 2011 1:15 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “Now lets break it down in terms that are actually tangible, and arent speculative. The Bills and Erie County are intent on bringing a third partner, New York State . . .”

    Intent? So they haven’t done it? And that in your world is tangible and not speculative? Hilarious.

    “The ENTIRE Erie County Delegation for the State Legislature of New York are content that a new lease will be signed and the state will kick in substantial.”

    Has it happened? That is not tangible and factual is it?

    And are you are pretty sure that the representatives of the people of Long Island and NYC proper are happy to give up state money to support a community that is losing population? Point is that it hasn’t happened yet and until it does you are speculating. Let me know how that goes.

    “All committed and all quoted as supporting the new lease and stadium renovations via Erie County Legislator Thomas J. Mazur in March RIGHT HERE”

    I read this story as well. You missed this part from the same story:

    “With would-be owners waiting in the wings with the presumed ability to pay $1 billion for a team, Buffalo faces plenty of challenges in keeping its team when the Bills are sold to a new owner.”

    And I liked this quote:

    “But if the county is going to have to pay much more [than now], will that sell?” she asked. “Will that sell with the public? Will that sell with the county executive? … It’s way too early to tell.”

    Oh wait somebody involved with the lease makes this statement, but you claim it is done? Who to believe? Who is speculating and who knows?

    Speculating? That is you stanmackley.

    And I like the part about the County putting out $7mill while getting back $6mill. Great value for Erie County.

    “Yes Buffalo is in bad shape nobody denies that. But failing to speak to the examples set by other failing cities out of your greasy Forbes magazine of Cleveland/Cincy/Detroit/Minneapolis/Oakland. WOOPSY did everyone forget about them????”

    Well what part do you want to talk about? Census numbers? Economic figures? They too are struggling, but this is about Buffalo isn’t it? And talking about Buffalo makes you want to talk about something else doesn’t it? Why? Because the city is is dismal straits, there is no getting around that and talking about those other cities doesn’t change that does it? Woopsy, did I just make you realize that you are trying to deflect the conversation away from Buffalo’s failings?

    “Your points are weak and based on nothing. forbes top ten list and the revenue figures place the bills in a bottom ten list YES, but what exactly does that indicate about a possible move to LA??”

    And you base yours on what?

    My points demonstrate that the Bills will make more money away from Buffalo then they will in it. So is that nothing? Unless of course you are from Buffalo in which case the lack of money is standard fare.

    ” . . .the proven support is there to keep the team, they will sign a lease extension . . .”

    Have they signed an extension? No. So you are speculating aren’t you?

    “lol. you can get back to collecting santa clause figurines off of ebay.”

    No I think I will stay here and continue to make you look silly.

  33. stanmackley says: Sep 10, 2011 3:22 PM

    the proof is there recon, you are abandoning your original claims while shuffling to defend yourself against my points.

    “My points demonstrate that the Bills will make more money away from Buffalo then they will in it. So is that nothing? Unless of course you are from Buffalo in which case the lack of money is standard fare. ”

    WHAT WHAT WHAT?????? your demonstration is the example of LA possibly getting a team???? are you joking???? we’ll get back to this lastly.

    “Well what part do you want to talk about? Census numbers? Economic figures? They too are struggling, but this is about Buffalo isn’t it? ”

    Lets talk about your original point that, because buffalo is in your forbes mag of dying cities, the bills ARE moving to LA?? why is it that buffalo is in such dire need to move while the browns (TWICE), bengals, lions, vikings, and raiders are all in similar citys that apparently are unbearable by your standards… lets pretend that NEWSWEEKS latest figures for 2011 dont even include Buffalo in the bottom 10 “Dying Cities” http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/01/21/america-s-dying-cities.html

    “Speculating? That is you stanmackley. ” – there is no speculating by pointing out the NY government is ready to pitch in $ for the bills. there is no speculating that FL, MN, and MS state delegations do NOT have the level of support that NY does. The FACTUAL support from the legislators that represent the greater portion of Western and Upstate NY are met with YOUR SPECULATIVE take on WHAT YOU THINK the people of long island think… lol. genius.

    Now, you are quick to point out how crappy buffalo is, how horrible the bills are, how old ralph is, and that the team is on the bottom of forbes list for team value- here- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Buffalo-Bills_301765.html
    lets not forget the second part of this article which points out that the operating income of the Bills is at $40.9 million. (This is the point to which I place the weight of my argument to why the Buffalo Bills will not move anytime soon, esp to LA in the next several years, hence my original statement- “why is buffalo tagged in this story”) That, according to Forbes, makes Buffalo the eighth most profitable club. here- http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/morning_roundup/2011/09/forbes-bills-low-on-valuation-high.html . So by your math, you have proven that a quick jump to any other city, the buffalo bills will instantly “make more money away from Buffalo than they would in it” this claim is inherently a grossly ignorant statement.

  34. recon163 says: Sep 10, 2011 4:40 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “the proof is there recon, you are abandoning your original claims while shuffling to defend yourself against my points.”

    I am not abandoning anything and I don’t need to defend my original points as you yourself validated them as truthful on your own. You asked me for citations I gave them and you admitted I was correct.

    “WHAT WHAT WHAT?????? your demonstration is the example of LA possibly getting a team???? are you joking???? we’ll get back to this lastly.”

    Not what I said. I said they will make more money away from Buffalo. And indeed the Bills validate my point by making deals to play in Toronto. If they were making good money in Buffalo, why play in Toronto? Obviously they need to expand their market. I like this notation from the Buffalo News: “And he (RW) mentioned that the Bills had run out of rocks to overturn in marketing the team in Western New York.”

    “Lets talk about your original point that, because buffalo is in your forbes mag of dying cities, the bills ARE moving to LA??”

    You asked why the Bills are tagged in the PFT story and I gave you the reasons. Did I say there were moving to LA? Nope never did. I did say their value and revenue would increase if they did move. Something the Buffalo News acknowledges.

    “why is it that buffalo is in such dire need to move while the browns (TWICE), bengals, lions, vikings, and raiders are all in similar citys that apparently are unbearable by your standards…”

    Never said they were in a dire need to move. I simply said that upon the death of Mr Wilson the team would be sold (One of my original points that you claimed wasn’t true.) and the new owner could make a considerable amount of money by moving.

    “lets pretend that NEWSWEEKS latest figures for 2011 dont even include Buffalo in the bottom 10 “Dying Cities”

    Maybe they consider it dead already? (Ok that is speculating.) Is Buffalo growing? Nope. Is Buffalo gaining economic strength? Are people moving to Buffalo? Glad to see you are off the new top ten list, but I wonder if you are in the top 20?

    “Speculating? That is you stanmackley. ” – there is no speculating by pointing out the NY government is ready to pitch in $ for the bills.”

    Have they done it? No. Until they do you are speculating. And who is telling they will contribute? Why, western NY politicians of course.

    “there is no speculating that FL, MN, and MS state delegations do NOT have the level of support that NY does.”

    What support for what? Prove it. Show me where this is noted and factual. Show me where it states that NY has better support than any of those states.

    “The FACTUAL support from the legislators that represent the greater portion of Western and Upstate NY are met with YOUR SPECULATIVE take on WHAT YOU THINK the people of long island think… lol. genius.”

    Yes the legislators of Western NY support it, what else do you think they will do? I asked you if you think the downstate folks will support it? Will they? Not speculating at all, I am asking you. You are there, tell me what is the benefit for Long Islanders to put out state money for the Bills?

    “lets not forget the second part of this article which points out that the operating income of the Bills is at $40.9 million. (This is the point to which I place the weight of my argument to why the Buffalo Bills will not move anytime soon, esp to LA in the next several years, hence my original statement- “why is buffalo tagged in this story”) That, according to Forbes, makes Buffalo the eighth most profitable club. . . So by your math, you have proven that a quick jump to any other city, the buffalo bills will instantly “make more money away from Buffalo than they would in it” this claim is inherently a grossly ignorant statement.”

    And by your math they won’t make more than $40 million a year with a move? Are you saying that a move to LA won’t see them making $80-100 mill a year? (BTW in 2009 the Bills estimate was $28 million.)

    Take a look at the Skins and Cowboys. Do you know why they are on top? They fill club seats and suites. The Buffalo area does not have the corporate presence or money that the other areas do. Glad you have passionate fans that fill the general bowl, but suites and club seats increase revenue.

    That is nice that they have a high operating income estimated this year. Now do you think a new owner wants to spend $900 million to make $40 million a year? Not withstanding any increase in team value over the years as the league grows. Or do you think that a new owner seeing a potential for a doubling or tripling of revenue will not take it or will they be satisfied with $40 mill?

  35. stanmackley says: Sep 10, 2011 5:57 PM

    “Yes the legislators of Western NY support it, what else do you think they will do?” They haven’t “done it” because the time hasnt come yet. Erie county just this year chipped in to rebuild the bills practice facility (field included). as yearly budgets are built as routine for ny state gov’t, legislators from western and upstate decide to allocate their “piece of the pie” to an area where they have gone on the record and pledged to continue to support. this wont change. it wont even be an issue in eastern new york, hypothetical support or not. the public money has been, and will continue to be there- here- http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article391290.ece

    as to proving this anomaly doesnt happen for every other team mentioned- i dont have to. i have showed the public dollars are there for the bills to continue to use through legislative support. this type of information is readily and easily searchable even through google- the same search queries do not return similar results for the jaguars, vikings, or raiders.

    i would like point out your major reason for buffalo moving was when you stated ““Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts. [cont’d]

    Sure here ya go…..Forbes Business of Football 2010: Buffalo Bills #28
    2011: Buffal Bills #24″”
    False False False. False and WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. and this isnt what you said that “its nice that the Buffalo Bills have a high estimated income this year” you are not recognizing that while near the bottom at 29th, valued at $792 million the Bills rake in the bucks, with operating income of $40.9 million. That, according to Forbes, makes Buffalo the eighth most profitable club. The team’s revenue was placed at $236 million, just barely below the NFL average of $261 million, which was up 4 percent from a year ago. here- http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/morning_roundup/2011/09/forbes-bills-low-on-valuation-high.html . Proof that even in the sh*ttiest of years, what the bills organization is doing, works. When the system is making it one of the most profitable teams in the league, and the current owner would rather die than move, and the financial support is pledged year after year from the state and county- it is mind boggling how the team is getting tossed in the speculation of moving. the only reason why, in my assumption, is that ralph hasnt told AEG to STFU. he hasnt slammed the door shut, but keep in mind that every other reporting site outside of PFT has accepted that the Raiders or possibly Chargers will make the move- here- http://www.footballphds.com/2011/08/29/nfl-in-la-final-stack-ranking-of-teams-headed-to-farmers-field-3/ and here- http://www.footballphds.com/2011/06/10/nfl-in-la-forecasting-the-future/

    overall value also throws a part into the discussion because buffalo seems like an easy buy. yes their overall worth is in the bottom of the league- but this is not at all and indicator that the bills will or should move. when considering their debt ratio, revenue intake, and operational income are among the top 10 in the league- again, professional football works in Buffalo. period. figures here- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/30/nfl-valuations-11_rank.html

  36. recon163 says: Sep 10, 2011 9:37 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    Let me continue to pound on you. This is fun.

    “Erie county just this year chipped in to rebuild the bills practice facility (field included).”

    Was this part of the 1998 lease? Where is this noted? Or as you did to me ‘citation needed’.

    “as yearly budgets are built as routine for ny state gov’t, legislators from western and upstate decide to allocate their “piece of the pie” to an area where they have gone on the record and pledged to continue to support.”

    You have no idea how government works huh? You are just making this part up huh?

    “the public money has been, and will continue to be there- here- http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article391290.ece

    Stan, this article notes elements that were agreed upon in the lease signed in 1998. Nothing extraordinary about that. And as your own WNY politicians pointed out, they are not sure if they are willing to give the Bills that much in then next go around.

    ” . . .as to proving this anomaly doesnt happen for every other team mentioned- i dont have to.”

    Why not. You claimed it, now prove it. Otherwise say you don’t know or are wrong.

    “i have showed the public dollars are there for the bills to continue to use through legislative support. this type of information is readily and easily searchable even through google- the same search queries do not return similar results for the jaguars, vikings, or raiders.”

    Didn’t the city just give the Jaguars all the revenues from the naming rights at the stadium. Didn’t the city of Oakland guarantee the sell out of club and suites to the Raiders? Didn’t Ramsey County just approve a $300 million bond to build a new stadium for the Vikings? Or do those examples not count?

    “i would like point out your major reason for buffalo moving was when you stated Forbes Business of Football 2010: Buffalo Bills #28
    2011: Buffal Bills #24″ “Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts.
    False False False. False and WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG.”

    Not at all. That is their position on the Forbes revenue charts. In 2010 they are listed as #28 in revenues. And I was off by 1 in 2011, the Bills are actually 25th on the list.

    “and this isnt what you said that “its nice that the Buffalo Bills have a high estimated income this year”

    Stan, are you having a reading problem? Notice I said revenue above while you going back to operating income. Those are two different things. Please try to keep up.

    On the 2010 chart the Bills posted revenues of $228 mill and $28 mill in operating income. In 2011 the Bills posted revenues of $236mill and $41 mill in operating income.

    But let’s take a closer look at those numbers shall we? In 2010 the Bills had player expenses of $142 mill, while in 2011 those expenses were down to $121 million. Wow that is pretty close to their operating income increase now isn’t it? Operating income being a function of revenues minus operating costs.

    “you are not recognizing that while near the bottom at 29th, valued at $792 million the Bills rake in the bucks, with operating income of $40.9 million.”

    I did. I am asking you, will a guy who just paid $800- $900 million be happy with making $40 million? Or he could move the team to LA and make $80-$100 million a year.

    “That, according to Forbes, makes Buffalo the eighth most profitable club. Proof that even in the sh*ttiest of years, what the bills organization is doing, works.”

    No that is proof that they are making anywhere between $20 and $45 million a year. They are actually averaging $31 million over a ten year period. (In 2008 they made $12 million. Nice.) The question goes back to: After paying $900 million will this be enough? Or if the Bills move to a larger market and they make Redskins money they will be making $78 million a year.

    ” . . .it is mind boggling how the team is getting tossed in the speculation of moving.”

    I am not boggled by it. Because I see what others see. A team with a lease that is expiring, that may be for sale, and one that will make a greater amount of money in a new market.

    ” . . .but keep in mind that every other reporting site outside of PFT has accepted that the Raiders or possibly Chargers will make the move . . .”

    Not true at all. Google Bills move to LA and let me know what you find. Read the Pro Football Weekly article.

    “overall value also throws a part into the discussion because buffalo seems like an easy buy. yes their overall worth is in the bottom of the league- but this is not at all and indicator that the bills will or should move. when considering their debt ratio, revenue intake, and operational income are among the top 10 in the league . . .”

    The low debt ratio makes them attractive buy. The short lease makes it even better. And the revenue and profit will only be increased with a move to a larger market.

    ” . . .again, professional football works in Buffalo. period. figures here . . .”

    We shall see how long that holds true. But if it works in Buffalo why are they playing games in Toronto?

  37. mjrusher says: Sep 11, 2011 8:50 AM

    @recon,

    I think we all are a little confused as to why you continue to think you have a leg up and are pounding on anyone or proving anything at all. your lack of citation reversion back to rhetoric has come full circle. you meet each point with something that might work at your job, but not here. i mean, your best point so far is that buffalo plays games in toronto, a fair question.

    its a safe bet to agree the bills are not in contention for LA. if, for no other reason, there are a handful of other teams that are actually ready and willing to jump. the provided links show this perfectly. The bills do continue to succeed at making money every year and are among the best in the league as profiting from their club. shown by the links.

    by your own admission, “Because I see what others see. A team with a lease that is expiring, that may be for sale, and one that will make a greater amount of money in a new market” this actually puts in… oh i dont know about 25 other teams possibly moving to LA. the bills lease expiring, but extending has in effect been pre-approved. this is properly cited. you continue to argue that, yes, the team may be for sale, someday, IF ralph dies. The only problem there is this indicator would put all 31 other teams in a similar situation.

    The bills (or any) operating income is in fact earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. the bills organization has shown that they are among the best in the league at profiting from the business. whether or not you think this will be enough for the next would be owner is irrelevant.

    normally when you make an argument with so many assumptions you should provide actual citations. and on your advice i “googled” “bills move to LA.” i must point out that sorting by date is absolutely essential. who cares about a report 6 months ago during the lockout??? to find what teams are actually considering the move, sort by date, and you will find that in fact, every article written in the last 2 MONTHS via google put either the rams, raiders, or chargers going. type it in and sort by date.

    “The low debt ratio makes them attractive buy. The short lease makes it even better. And the revenue and profit will only be increased with a move to a larger market.”
    Revenues and profits will increase as soon as they move to a larger market… a large market is absolutely not a rubber stamp indicator of increasing revenues and profits over where the bills currently are. concerning “Large markets” why doesnt SanDiego work? or Jacksonville?? why did all the other LA teams leave? why arent teams in small markets that arent as profitable as the cowboys trying to jump ship to LA? why not go “increase your revenue and profits,” as you claim, if you are ANY team? who’s to say what the LA football market will actually turn one way or the other? im not, you’re not, in fact there are so many conflicting reports on the matter it is ridiculous.

    it’s safe to say at this point that buffalo will not make the jump to LA. but that doesnt mean buffalo fans should get comfy as stanmakey implies, because whenever the highest bidder is given that opportunity, he will do whatever he wants with the team.

  38. mjrusher says: Sep 11, 2011 8:58 AM

    @recon,

    I think we all are a little confused as to why you continue to think you have a leg up and are pounding on anyone or proving anything at all. your lack of citation reversion back to rhetoric has come full circle. you meet each point with something that might work at your job, but not here. i mean, your best point so far is that buffalo plays games in toronto, a fair question.

    its a safe bet to agree the bills are not in contention for LA. if, for no other reason, there are a handful of other teams that are actually ready and willing to jump. the provided links show this perfectly. The bills do continue to succeed at making money every year and are among the best in the league as profiting from their club. shown by the links.

    by your own admission, “Because I see what others see. A team with a lease that is expiring, that may be for sale, and one that will make a greater amount of money in a new market” this actually puts in… oh i dont know about 25 other teams possibly moving to LA. the bills lease expiring, but extending has in effect been pre-approved. this is properly cited. you continue to argue that, yes, the team may be for sale, someday, IF ralph dies. The only problem there is this indicator would put all 31 other teams in a similar situation.

    The bills (or any) operating income is in fact earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. the bills organization has shown that they are among the best in the league at profiting from the business. whether or not you think this will be enough for the next would be owner is irrelevant.

    normally when you make an argument with so many assumptions you should provide actual citations. and on your advice i “googled” “bills move to LA.” i must point out that sorting by date is absolutely essential. who cares about a report 6 months ago during the lockout??? to find what teams are actually considering the move, sort by date, and you will find that in fact, every article written in the last 2 MONTHS via google put either the rams, raiders, or chargers going. type it in and sort by date.

    “The low debt ratio makes them attractive buy. The short lease makes it even better. And the revenue and profit will only be increased with a move to a larger market.”
    Revenues and profits will increase as soon as they move to a larger market… a large market is absolutely not a rubber stamp indicator of increasing revenues and profits over where the bills currently are. concerning “Large markets” why doesnt SanDiego work? or Jacksonville?? why did all the other LA teams leave? why arent teams in small markets that arent as profitable as the cowboys trying to jump ship to LA? why not go “increase your revenue and profits,” as you claim, if you are ANY team? who’s to say what the LA football market will actually turn one way or the other? im not, you’re not, in fact there are so many conflicting reports on the matter it is ridiculous.

    it’s safe to say at this point that buffalo will not make the jump to LA. but that doesnt mean buffalo fans should get comfy, because whenever the highest bidder is given that opportunity, he will do whatever he wants with the team.

  39. stanmackley says: Sep 11, 2011 9:11 AM

    Why in the hell do my comments get deleted and now I can’t even post???

  40. pftequalzzz says: Sep 11, 2011 9:22 AM

    i dont know why knuckleheads take time to argue about buffalo. mr. magoo still has a few senile years left so la is out. this is common knowledge.

  41. stanmackley says: Sep 11, 2011 9:46 AM

    the bills have a better profit margin than all other teams in discussion to move to LA, and recons rebuttal is that he thinks those profits wont be enough for the next owner. whenever that happens. i mean, the link puts a chart in front your face, click the revenue tab, and it even sorts it for you. make the deductions and you are left with the 8th most profitable organization in the league. you cant fix stupid. the bills are in a better financial position current and projected, than the current state of the chargers, raiders, rams, and vikings. this makes them less likely to jump to LA. (see previous citations) especially not when the other teams are ready to go, which is widespread accepted knowledge to everyone accept yourself and i have provided links as proof, and even your own suggested “google search” shows the same returns for recent articles. buffalo is as likely to jump to LA as the any team coming up on a lease agreement, which in itself, doesnt mean a damn thing.

    5 games over 5 years in toronto guarantees the bills a little extra money by hyping filling a bowl in the international market. did the cards move to mexico in 05? are the bucs moving to london?

    so again, why does buffalo get tagged in this story? a question to which you have yet to speak to. and are incapable of doing so.

  42. stanmackley says: Sep 11, 2011 1:40 PM

    Forbes says buffalo is the eigth most profitable club in the NFL this qualifies the financial position being better than the other teams that actually may make the move to LA.

  43. vip320 says: Sep 12, 2011 6:29 PM

    Stanmackley:

    Recon163 thinks just because he read the book Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, that he is qualified to run a sports team. He obviously has nothing better to do with his time, because he is always on here arguing with people and trying to make them feel stupid. His opinion is the only one that matters in his mind. He contradicts himself and never uses citations to support his claims. It’s a rather sad life and I have a feeling he will comment on this because he has nothing better to do with his life.

  44. recon163 says: Sep 12, 2011 7:29 PM

    @ vip320:

    “Recon163 thinks just because he read the book Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, that he is qualified to run a sports team.”

    Not at all. But reading that book and others has made me better understand the business of sports and why teams move. Reading, you should try it. You might be able to keep up with intelligent discussion.

    “He obviously has nothing better to do with his time, because he is always on here arguing with people and trying to make them feel stupid.”

    Not hard to do really, so it doesn’t take a lot of time.

    “His opinion is the only one that matters in his mind.”

    Not at all. I respect people with informed and intelligent opinions. And then there is yours. Which falls somewhere between a street corner madman and career advice from the guy at the car wash.

    “He contradicts himself and never uses citations to support his claims.”

    Hardly and always do use sources. Is this an APA paper that requires citations? Nope. Do you or Stan get to set the rules on what counts and doesn’t? Nope. (More on this when I respond to Stan later.)

    “It’s a rather sad life and I have a feeling he will comment on this because he has nothing better to do with his life.”

    Not really. Flew to NY yesterday, enjoyed a great evening with friends, went to WTC Memorial site today, and am heading out for dinner in a bit. What did you do today? That is what I thought……nothing…..

    BTW: The whole, ‘if he responds he has nothing else to do” thing is exceptionally stupid (What should I expect….look who is posting it.) What you are really saying is I hope he doesn’t respond. And if I don’t respond you will go around saying “see I chased him away”. Uh…..no.

    Stan: I will get back to you when I get back to my hotel. Are you also replying as mjrusher? The writing is exceptionally similar.

  45. stanmackley says: Sep 12, 2011 9:58 PM

    wishful thinking recon… why dont you blame me for all the thumbs down you recieved too. as far as im concerned this bs is over- you have made your mark in here as an exceptional douche, even against the lowest posters on pft. I have no doubt you will continue to nitpick any part of my post that you can in order to try for a “gotcha” while avoiding the meat. seems about your style.
    id much rather hear about how much better your life is than everyone else’s. that makes for great reading.

  46. recon163 says: Sep 12, 2011 11:31 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    Was just walking into my hotel when I got your message. Let me respond to this first, then I will get back to your flawed post.

    “wishful thinking recon… why dont you blame me for all the thumbs down you recieved too.”

    Probably because I don’t really care about them. So that should salve any distress you suffer over my likability.

    “as far as im concerned this bs is over- you have made your mark in here as an exceptional douche, even against the lowest posters on pft.”

    Oh yes, well your opinion means so much to me. I am sure most of the world lives to impress stanmackley.

    “I have no doubt you will continue to nitpick any part of my post that you can in order to try for a “gotcha” while avoiding the meat.”

    Nitpick? Play gotcha? Oh no Stan, that is called challenging your ‘facts’. It wouldn’t be gotcha if you were right, but you’re not, so your ‘facts’ need to be exposed for what they are. And that is a by-product of bovine intestinal activity.

    Please note that I have never pointed out your many grammatical and spelling errors, so as you can see I am not nitpicking you.

    And you have offered no ‘meat’ Stan. Just the world as you see it, which if compared to meat it would be tripe.

    “id much rather hear about how much better your life is than everyone else’s. that makes for great reading.”

    I am sorry it is better than yours Stan. Maybe you should follow the Bills when they leave Buffalo? That might improve your outlook.

  47. stanmackley says: Sep 13, 2011 7:28 AM

    lol recon, you dont care. you dont care so much that you respond to every personal post with a near line by line breakdown??? haha. even though i dont live in buffalo, i would take b-lo over of LA. which is why you are trolling the buffalo thread right? you are so passionate about la getting a team and new stadium that you must insert yourself into any talk about it.
    the fact is, my posts demonstrate the unlikeliness of the bills organization moving to la and include examples/citations to strengthen. your posts offer a mere rebuttal with your own opinion on points that arent even pertinent to the main argument. how sad for you.
    the fact is, yes la is getting a team and a stadium. it just wont be the bills going, and this is where you continue to strike out. will a new team/stadium combo work in la? i believe it probably will. there are 17 million people with no team in LA. The Chargers were in LA in 1960 for one season before moving to San Diego. There are many factors we can cite here, but I would note that in sports terms, 1960 is not exactly a bell weather of fan support potential.

    The other two teams left LA because of the Coliseum. They were unable to get suites built there and therefore were in a stadium situation which hampered their revenue sources. (not happening in Buffalo) Both naturally sought out better deals. The Rams went to Anaheim, the Raiders went back to Oakland.

    Another key element to the moves was the inability to sell out the 92k seat stadium they were in which led to TV blackouts. (not happening in buffalo) For the Raiders, they cut prices on tickets and still couldn’t sell out. (not happening in buffalo) The stadium, antiquated, incapable of competing economically, and unable to attract fans eventually cost LA its franchises. (not happening where? … buffalo. )

    I would also point out that Californians will not fund stadiums from public coffers. This is critical. Who provided the funding for the ralph’s stadium? In CA it would be impossible to get the community to agree to make a billionaire wealthier on the public dime. In short, the ego of LA isn’t so intertwined with any local sports team. If the Jags/Raiders/Chargers move there, they wouldn’t be central to our identity, but they would be a part. LA just doesn’t think that a sports team is our defining quality.

    It is easy for folks not from LA nor Buffalo to claim to know the LA or Buffalo dynamics, but the fact is unless they have studied the situation in each city they do not. I don’t believe you have studied the Buffalo situation and to shoot from the hip as you do, weakens your ability to make a point- especially when your overall goal here is to show that… wait what is your goal here?… And you should make an effort to understand it, because the national sportswriters, NFL business people, and potential owners are doing so.

  48. stanmackley says: Sep 13, 2011 1:04 PM

    Recon, a fair accusation you made earlier, that I hadn’t shown why the Bills are in a safer position than any other teams in contention.  Bless your little heart recon.  The bills won’t move while Ralph Wilson is alive.  So all anyone can do is guess on when he will keal over.  All indicators point towards the Bills leaving over his cold dead body.  You think they are in contention.  They are not. 
    But hey, it’s not just me.  I’d take Adam Shefter’s word over yours. http://sbn.to/oEiawF
    I’d also take the NFL’s own Jason La Canfora’s, Steve Wyche, Pat Kirwan, Vic Curruci, Albert Breer, Charles Davis, and Elliot Harrison’s word for it over yours.  http://bit.ly/m15yVM
    Talks between AEG and the Bills organization to this point haven’t consisted of more than getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project (http://bit.ly/knHMed), it’s no secret that AEG is casting a huge net for this project, and rightly so.   This absolutely not an indicator that the Bills are in contention.  AEG has been in talks with 5 so far, Buffalo is not on the list http://bit.ly/lV0SEP
    So lets look at the other teams that are actually in contention.   The Jaguars at one time, the NFL saw Jacksonville as a potential Atlanta — a sunbelt city with enormous growth potential. That growth never happened, and Jacksonville is now the nation’s 49th-ranked television market, trailing such metropolises as Albuquerque, N.M. and Greensboro, N.C. The team now covers up 10,000 seats in its cavernous 76,000-seat stadium, and had seven of its eight games in 2009 blacked out.
    But the Vikings are the easiest team to move logistically, right?  With a lease expiring after the 2011 season, and the extenuating circumstance of a busted stadium. Additionally, in the last 10 years, the NHL’s Wild, the MLB’s Twins and the University of Minnesota’s football program have gotten new facilities. And the public is reluctant to pitch in on another project. For all those reasons, this situation isn’t totally unlike what the Browns — with the Cavs and Indians in new places and a broke owner — faced in the mid-1990s.
    Then why not take the Raiders back??  The Raiders spent over a decade in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and have a built-in fan base. Some crazies still make the trip up the coast for games, 16 years after the Raiders left. Also, the Raiders are in a deplorable stadium situation, with the lease expiring following the 2013 season, and rank clearly as the second team in a large, but not overwhelmingly big market (behind the 49ers). Also, seven of the team’s eight 2010 home games were blacked out.
    Or considering the Rams the owner Stan Kroenke is on the NFL’s eight-member Los Angeles Stadium Working Group, which has raised eyebrows in the past, and the city is, of course, where the Rams came from when moving to St. Louis in 1995. The Edward Jones Dome is also in that “middling” area, outdated but perhaps too new to replace. The Rams have an out after the 2014 season if the club isn’t playing in a “state-of-the-art” facility (either renovated or new).
    Lastly the Chargers, much like the Raiders you have a built-in fan base to arrive to for this team. The Chargers can buy out of their lease, which runs through 2020, now for $24 million, and that figure drops as time goes on. Even as a consistent contender, San Diego hasn’t killed it at the box office, and had three games blacked out last fall. But maybe most important is that the Spanos family has been working for more than a decade to solve the stadium situation, and eventually, they might be forced to look elsewhere.
    Bottom line?  It will certainly be up to the next owner of the team to stay in Buffalo.  Between extending the lease in Buffalo (http://sbn.to/jsTTy3) and expanding the team’s footprint in its region, the Bills to have a plan in place not moving. 

  49. recon163 says: Sep 13, 2011 8:00 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    Stan I am heading out again, but I did want to note this one thing before I bail.

    I’d take Adam Shefter’s word over yours. http://sbn.to/oEiawF

    So let’s look at the article you linked to with a discussion from Adam Schefter. This is the last sentence:

    “Schefter’s report hardly removes the Bills from the race, to be sure, but it’s good news nonetheless.”

    Please note what this sentence says. As always, you pick and choose only parts of a discussion that support your point of view. And you dismiss any other point as irrelevant.

    So you see Stan, you have no argument here. It is just you trying to make yourself feel better by picking the facts that fit your desires.

  50. stanmackley says: Sep 13, 2011 11:08 PM

    safe travels buddy. as expected, you pick out one sentence out of the entire 3 page post with a minute detail that has no effect on the outcome of my argument, and AGAIN you fail to make a point. HAHAHA.
    the link in context shows that “that the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are the two NFL teams most likely to relocate to Los Angeles”, then my post goes on to demonstrate the actual composition of the “talks” or lack thereof that have happened between AEG and the Bills organization. Don’t forget that All indicators point towards the Bills leaving over Ralphs cold dead body. You think they are in contention. They are not.
    But hey, it’s not just me.  Adam Shefter’s word is better than yours and shows the unlikeliness of the Bills moving to LA.   http://sbn.to/oEiawF
    I’d also take the NFL’s own Jason La Canfora’s, Steve Wyche, Pat Kirwan, Vic Curruci, Albert Breer, Charles Davis, and Elliot Harrison’s word for it over yours. http://bit.ly/m15yVM
    Talks between AEG and the Bills organization to this point haven’t consisted of more than getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project (http://bit.ly/knHMed), it’s no secret that AEG is casting a huge net for this project, and rightly so. This absolutely not an indicator that the Bills are in contention. AEG has been in talks with 5 so far, Buffalo is not on the list http://bit.ly/lV0SEP
    So lets look at the 5 teams that are actually in contention.  Of these 5 Buffalo is NOT there. The Jaguars at one time, the NFL saw Jacksonville as a potential Atlanta — a sunbelt city with enormous growth potential. That growth never happened, and Jacksonville is now the nation’s 49th-ranked television market, trailing such metropolises as Albuquerque, N.M. and Greensboro, N.C. The team now covers up 10,000 seats in its cavernous 76,000-seat stadium, and had seven of its eight games in 2009 blacked out.
    But the Vikings are the easiest team to move logistically, right? With a lease expiring after the 2011 season, and the extenuating circumstance of a busted stadium. Additionally, in the last 10 years, the NHL’s Wild, the MLB’s Twins and the University of Minnesota’s football program have gotten new facilities. And the public is reluctant to pitch in on another project. For all those reasons, this situation isn’t totally unlike what the Browns — with the Cavs and Indians in new places and a broke owner — faced in the mid-1990s.
    Then why not take the Raiders back?? The Raiders spent over a decade in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and have a built-in fan base. Some crazies still make the trip up the coast for games, 16 years after the Raiders left. Also, the Raiders are in a deplorable stadium situation, with the lease expiring following the 2013 season, and rank clearly as the second team in a large, but not overwhelmingly big market (behind the 49ers). Also, seven of the team’s eight 2010 home games were blacked out.
    Or considering the Rams the owner Stan Kroenke is on the NFL’s eight-member Los Angeles Stadium Working Group, which has raised eyebrows in the past, and the city is, of course, where the Rams came from when moving to St. Louis in 1995. The Edward Jones Dome is also in that “middling” area, outdated but perhaps too new to replace. The Rams have an out after the 2014 season if the club isn’t playing in a “state-of-the-art” facility (either renovated or new).
    Lastly the Chargers, much like the Raiders you have a built-in fan base to arrive to for this team. The Chargers can buy out of their lease, which runs through 2020, now for $24 million, and that figure drops as time goes on. Even as a consistent contender, San Diego hasn’t killed it at the box office, and had three games blacked out last fall. But maybe most important is that the Spanos family has been working for more than a decade to solve the stadium situation, and eventually, they might be forced to look elsewhere.
    Bottom line? It will certainly be up to the next owner of the team to stay in Buffalo, As the case is with nearly every change in ownership for every NFL team. Between extending the lease in Buffalo (http://sbn.to/jsTTy3) and expanding the team’s footprint in its region, the Bills to have a plan in place and are not moving.
    I will close with the fact that the pure idiocy of recon163 will forever be encapsulated in this thread. To all new readers, I beg you to read up a few posts from here to see a moron chase his own tail then jump out trying to claim victory. You lost here recon163, you lost hard.

  51. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 12:09 AM

    @ stanmackley:

    “safe travels buddy. as expected, you pick out one sentence out of the entire 3 page post with a minute detail that has no effect on the outcome of my argument, and AGAIN you fail to make a point.”

    Obviously you are once again having comprehension problems Stan. My point is very clear, you ignore anything that appears in any story, including ones you post up on that don’t reflect your opinion.

    Try again Stan. The sentence states, “. . .hardly removes the Bills from the race . . .”

    That is a very clear statement Stan and one that you hand delivered to me. It is not nit picking at all, it is a part of the story. So why can’t I quote your own link?

    ” . . .the link in context shows that “that the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are the two NFL teams most likely to relocate to Los Angeles”

    I thought your contention was that the Bills would not move, not that those two teams were the most likely. As noted before you claim the Bills will not move and you have failed to prove that.

    “Don’t forget that All indicators point towards the Bills leaving over Ralphs cold dead body. You think they are in contention. They are not.”

    Stan, I said that already. I was the one who noted that the Bills would be sold upon his death and would not move before then. All you are doing is coming around to my point of view and proving yourself wrong about this.

    “Adam Shefter’s word is better than yours and shows the unlikeliness of the Bills moving to LA. http://sbn.to/oEiawF

    Of course that is not what he said. I didn’t see anywhere in the article where Schefter said it is unlikely to be the Bills. That is all you, you made it up……again.

    “Talks between AEG and the Bills organization to this point haven’t consisted of more than getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project (http://bit.ly/knHMed)”

    So if they are not in contention why is AEG briefing them on a monthly basis? Just because?

    ” . . . it’s no secret that AEG is casting a huge net for this project, and rightly so. This absolutely not an indicator that the Bills are in contention.”

    So they are casting a wide net, briefing the Bills on a monthly basis, but is not considering the Bills as a potential team to relocate? Uh…..no. Is AEG briefing the Cowboys? That is a pretty good indicator they won’t be moving.

    All your discussion about the other teams is interesting, let’s take a look at it:

    ” . . .Jacksonville is now the nation’s 49th-ranked television market, trailing such metropolises as Albuquerque, N.M. and Greensboro, N.C.”

    And ahead of Buffalo in the 2011 DMA list. Ouch, that hurt huh?

    “But the Vikings are the easiest team to move logistically, right? With a lease expiring after the 2011 season, and the extenuating circumstance of a busted stadium.”

    Stadium was repaired already. But I find it interesting that you find a lease that is expiring as increasing the chances a team will move, except in the case of the Buffalo Bills.

    ” . . .rank clearly as the second team in a larg”e, but not overwhelmingly big market (behind the 49ers).”

    Number 6 market in the nation,. If the Bills are so great for being the 8th most profitable team, how is the number 6 market not very big? I just like to point out how you make up facts.

    “The Chargers can buy out of their lease, which runs through 2020, now for $24 million . . ”

    And the Bills lease can be bought out for $2 million in 2012. See the Buffalo News.

    “It will certainly be up to the next owner of the team to stay in Buffalo . . .”

    Oh yes it will be up to the next owner, which is what I believe I have been saying all along.

    “Between extending the lease in Buffalo (http://sbn.to/jsTTy3) . . .”

    Hasn’t happened yet has it? I know you take it as a given, but until it happens it hasn’t.

    “I will close with the fact that the pure idiocy of recon163 will forever be encapsulated in this thread. To all new readers, I beg you to read up a few posts from here to see a moron chase his own tail then jump out trying to claim victory. You lost here recon163, you lost hard.”

    Hardly Stan, as can be easily noted, your posts are filled with errors. I have corrected you over and over and you have yet to acknowledge when you are wrong. My favorite so far has been the ‘no blackouts in Buffalo”. But this has been you throughout, you have made many claims, all proved false. You have made many pronouncements, all proven incorrect. And when I show you as being wrong I am nitpicking you. Never mind that your argument is based on an incorrect fact, for you it is nitpicking.

    If you start out with a bad premise Stan, doesn’t that negate your argument? In learned circles it does, for you not so much.

    I don’t need to claim victory, deep down inside, you know I have it, and have had it since day one.

    The Bills are indeed in the consideration for a move to LA and for all the reasons I originally noted.

  52. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 8:56 AM

    “So they are casting a wide net, briefing the Bills on a monthly basis, but is not considering the Bills as a potential team to relocate? Uh…..no. Is AEG briefing the Cowboys? That is a pretty good indicator they won’t be moving.”
    Sending a monthly briefing is not an actual talk, which has happened with the 5 other organizations in contention. The briefing is reportedly going out to nearly all nfl organizations. What part of “AEG has not been in talks with the Buffalo Bills” is so hard to understand. This is an indicator that the Bills are not in contention.

    And pretend I’m saying this s-l-o-w-l-y so you can understand. Schefters link in context shows that “that the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are the two NFL teams most likely to relocate to Los Angeles” not to mention last part of the sentence you HACK off for your own purpose (which is what again? hahah) “to be sure, but it’s good news nonetheless.” So it’s noted that Buffalo is still in the race “to be sure” so they can cover themselves just in case.

    “And ahead of Buffalo in the 2011 DMA list. Ouch, that hurt huh?”

    Absolutely not, why? Because Buffalo hasn’t talked to AEG. This is fun lets keep going.

    “Stadium was repaired already. But I find it interesting that you find a lease that is expiring as increasing the chances a team will move, except in the case of the Buffalo Bills.”

    A new roof didn’t fix the rest of the problems at the Metrodome. And the Bills are working on resigning as we speak. Again, AEG and the Vikings HAVE actually spoken. AEG has not been in talks with the Bills.

    “Number 6 market in the nation,. If the Bills are so great for being the 8th most profitable team, how is the number 6 market not very big? I just like to point out how you make up facts. ?

    Nothing is made up at all wrong again recon, btw you are still striking out (no point, no evidence). I didn’t say the Bills were “so great” Forbes did here- http://bit.ly/pijHoh . And yes the number 6 market in the nation is big. Very good recon bless your heart.

    “And the Bills lease can be bought out for $2 million in 2012. See the Buffalo News.”

    Lease is expected to be extended by then, but yes, before an extension it could be broken… whats your point again???

    “Oh yes it will be up to the next owner, which is what I believe I have been saying all along. ”
    I’ll continue to take “Ralph will never sell the team until he dies” over the 5 other teams is discussions with AEG. Again, if ANY team looses an owner the future of the club will be questioned.

    “you have made many claims, all proved false. You have made many pronouncements, all proven incorrect. And when I show you as being wrong I am nitpicking you. Never mind that your argument is based on an incorrect fact, for you it is nitpicking. ”

    This is laughable. You grasp onto a closing report on Schefter’s story like its Gold, when actually, the story strengthens my argument. And again, at ever turn, you strike out and have been cycling through a last resort method of attempting to pick apart my posts without offering anything yourself. how sad for you.

    “The Bills are indeed in the consideration for a move to LA and for all the reasons I originally noted.”

    lol.

    Recon163’s reason #1: “Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts.”

    Near the bottom in revenue but in near the top in profits.

    #2: “Because their lease is expiring soon.”

    Ridiculously dumb indicator, if used there would be how many teams in contention?

    #3: “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson.”

    Recon163, poster child of speculation on all things LA.

    #4:”Because Buffalo is a dying city. ”

    Again, not an indicator.

    #5: “Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill.”

    IF aeg was talking to the bills, and IF ralph wilson was dead. IF any of it happens come talk to me.

    It got alot funnier once I listed it all out. I will close with the fact that the pure idiocy of recon163 will forever be encapsulated in this thread. To all new readers, I beg you to read up a few posts from here to see a moron chase his own tail then jump out trying to claim victory. You lost here recon163, you lost hard.

  53. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 12:01 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “Sending a monthly briefing is not an actual talk . . .”

    Are they sending a briefing? Is this an email attachment? Is it done via teleconference? Is it live? Stan you are giving the impression you know the format it is being delivered in. I assume you sit in or get to read these briefings? So you know exactly what they are and how they are delivered? That is what I thought, you don’t. Making it up again?

    Or as the article which you retrieved this nugget states: “An AEG source indicated on Friday that the group is actually in contact with more than the five teams cited by Leiweke. Those clubs are getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project.”

    So if you are including the Bills as a club getting these briefings the article notes that AEG has been in contact with them. You just proved yourself wrong Stan……again.

    “The briefing is reportedly going out to nearly all nfl organizations.”

    Funny that is not listed anywhere in the article you cite. Again you are making it up huh?

    “What part of “AEG has not been in talks with the Buffalo Bills” is so hard to understand.”

    They aren’t? Funny, I don’t see that in any article you quote. Instead your articles simply discuss the most likely teams, and add that are the other teams they have talked to, but nowhere does it say that the Bills are excluded from those talks.

    “Schefters link in context shows that “that the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are the two NFL teams most likely to relocate to Los Angeles”

    So if they are most likely that excludes the Bills completely? Uh…..no.

    “to be sure, but it’s good news nonetheless.” So it’s noted that Buffalo is still in the race “to be sure” so they can cover themselves just in case.”

    Oh well yes it is clear in the words ” . . .good news nonetheless” clearly means “The Bills are not moving. No Stan, the first part of the sentence is the telling part. The Bills are NOT removed from the conversation.

    “Absolutely not, why? Because Buffalo hasn’t talked to AEG. ”

    But you just said they are getting briefings that are being delivered to the club by means that you are unaware of. Are you sure no one is talking during these briefings?

    “Again, AEG and the Vikings HAVE actually spoken.”

    The Vikings owner also said that Mine fans have nothing to worry about.

    “AEG has not been in talks with the Bills.”

    Really? They are getting briefings but not talking? What do these briefings look like since you seem to be privy to them?

    “Lease is expected to be extended by then, but yes, before an extension it could be broken… whats your point again???”

    Uh….you noted that the Chargers lease was an easy out, I am just pointing out that so are the Bills. A fact that you overlooked and don’t want brought up.

    “Again, if ANY team looses an owner the future of the club will be questioned.”

    Trying hard to deflect from reality Stan? Ralph Wilson is 92, the actuary charts are against you.

    “This is laughable. You grasp onto a closing report on Schefter’s story like its Gold, when actually, the story strengthens my argument.”

    LOL, No it doesn’t. The story notes that the other teams are in play, but doesn’t exclude the Bills, something that you desperately want. Every story you have linked to mentions other teams but does not exclude the Bills. All your stories list other teams are most likely, but do not exclude the Bills. And no amount of spinning on your part will make it so.

    “and again, at ever turn, you strike out and have been cycling through a last resort method of attempting to pick apart my posts without offering anything yourself. how sad for you.”

    Not sad for me at all. Sad for you that you clearly are demonstrating your inability to comprehend the written word. You are trying to pick my posts apart and only come up with crazy ideas like “if not listed as most likely, that means not considered.” Hardly an argument.

    ‘Near the bottom in revenue but in near the top in profits.”

    In 2011 near the top of the operating income estimates, how about 2010 or 2008? By the way you noted earlier that they are estimated to continue to make great profits, where is that written? Link to that Stan.

    “Because their lease is expiring soon. Ridiculously dumb indicator, if used there would be how many teams in contention?”

    Funny, you note the Raiders lease and the Chargers lease is expiring and offer that as a solid indication of why they will move, but want to exclude the Bills from the conversation? Despite the fact they are in exactly the same circumstance?

    “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson. Recon163, poster child of speculation on all things LA.”

    LOL, Stan you have agreed with this in your earlier postings and even do so in the post I am replying to. Do you read or remember what you say?

    ”Because Buffalo is a dying city. Again, not an indicator.”

    Read the article from Evan Weiner of Yahoo Sports entitled, Buffalo blackouts and why Buffalo might not be a viable NFL market.

    “IF aeg was talking to the bills, and IF ralph wilson was dead. IF any of it happens come talk to me.”

    Sure and you can come talk to me IF the lease is extended. Which has not happened, has it?

    “You lost here recon163, you lost hard.”

    Sure I did Stan, you keep convincing yourself of such………..hope it makes you feel better because every time I see your posting I know it just the same old rantings sans reason/logic and chock full of errors.

  54. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 12:05 PM

    @recon163 ou said-

    “I have corrected you over and over and you have yet to acknowledge when you are wrong. My favorite so far has been the ‘no blackouts in Buffalo”. But this has been you throughout, you have made many claims, all proved false.”

    Actually I said, “Not happening in Buffalo” in regards to the attendance woes that your beloved LA Raiders experienced. Care to look at attendence figures for the Bills organization?

  55. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 12:44 PM

    Stan,

    This is exactly what you wrote:

    “Another key element to the moves was the inability to sell out the 92k seat stadium they were in which led to TV blackouts. (not happening in buffalo)”

    Clearly you are saying that RW stadium is sold out all the time and there are no blackouts, but we find out that is not true. As usual, making it up as you go along.

  56. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 1:33 PM

    Recon,

    “Clearly you are saying that RW stadium is sold out all the time and there are no blackouts, but we find out that is not true. As usual, making it up as you go along.”

    Clearly I never said/wrote that. You can take a sentence out of context all you want. The attendance reference is clearly listed in regards to the attendance woes that your beloved LA Raiders experienced. period. Never said no blackouts in Buffalo.

    next?

  57. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 2:22 PM

    @recon
    “Those clubs are getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project.”

    difference between getting an update from aeg, and having a sitdown with aeg. clearly listed here. http://bit.ly/knHMed strike one.

    “They aren’t? Funny, I don’t see that in any article you quote. Instead your articles simply discuss the most likely teams, and add that are the other teams they have talked to, but nowhere does it say that the Bills are excluded from those talks.”

    AEG has been in contact with the Rams, Raiders, Jaguars, Vikings and Chargers, to gage interest in attracting a team to Los Angeles. Other clubs are getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project. Meeting with AEG is not equal to recieving an update. oh yeah, plainly listed here- http://bit.ly/knHMed strike 2

    “No it doesn’t. The story notes that the other teams are in play, but doesn’t exclude the Bills, something that you desperately want. Every story you have linked to mentions other teams but does not exclude the Bills. All your stories list other teams are most likely, but do not exclude the Bills. And no amount of spinning on your part will make it so. ”

    not spin, just listing plain facts with citations from experts not like yourself. the progress aeg has made with the before mentioned teams is listed plainly and clearly, the same progress and talks that is completely non existant in Buffalo(to which you continue to be UNABLE TO PROVIDE. strike 3

    “In 2011 near the top of the operating income estimates, how about 2010 or 2008? By the way you noted earlier that they are estimated to continue to make great profits, where is that written? Link to that Stan.”

    why should i attempt and speculate when Forbes lists it clearly??? http://bit.ly/pijHoh If you are moronically asking for an outlook on projected income for the team, i think theres a long line of people that would like to see that as well. again, very sad. strike 4

    “LOL, Stan you have agreed with this [team ownership changes if/when ralph dies] in your earlier postings and even do so in the post I am replying to. Do you read or remember what you say?

    Absolutely, i remember. but if you continue to idiodically bank your entire arguement on the possibility of a man’s death… well, thats not very strong to say the least. strike 5

    “Read the article from Evan Weiner of Yahoo Sports entitled, Buffalo blackouts and why Buffalo might not be a viable NFL market. ”

    Weiner’s article http://exm.nr/9O75M2 written before the end of last season might i add, rightly points out the rumors that swirl with a blackout. If you cant sell tickets that is bad, very good recon bless your little heart. what does history tell us about comparative attendance in the stadium? Weiner also points out the dedication to the bills organization from Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Buffalo-area Rep. Brian Higgins. It was a good read, but again, a speculative piece on “why buffalo MIGHT not be a viable nfl market.” strike 6

    “Sure I did Stan, you keep convincing yourself of such………..hope it makes you feel better because every time I see your posting I know it just the same old rantings sans reason/logic and chock full of errors.”

    I dont feel better until i see your next post. you still havent shown/proved anything. you continue to deflect from your original claims with idiocracy. strike … wait how many is that now?

    Oh and this is MY favorite.

    Recon163′s reason #1: “Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts.”

    Near the bottom in revenue but in near the top in profits.

    #2: “Because their lease is expiring soon.”

    Ridiculously dumb indicator, if used there would be how many teams in contention?

    #3: “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson.”

    Recon163, poster child of speculation on all things LA.

    #4:”Because Buffalo is a dying city. ”

    Again, not an indicator.

    #5: “Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill.”

    IF aeg was talking to the bills, and IF ralph wilson was dead. IF any of it happens come talk to me.

    I mean, this just keeps getting better. I again will close with the fact that the pure idiocy of recon163 will forever be encapsulated in this thread. To all new readers, I beg you to read up a few posts from here to see a moron chase his own tail then jump out trying to claim victory. You lost here recon163, you lost hard.

  58. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 2:28 PM

    Stan,

    As always you demonstrate your inability to admit that you are wrong. I don’t blame you though because once you get started you would here all day admitting to your many errors.

    BTW: At what point did you deduce that I was a Raider fan? Is this another guess of yours? Because once again, you are wrong.

    And why shouldn’t I post under recon163 on other forums? Doesn’t everybody use the same name? How many names do you use?

  59. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 3:37 PM

    recon,
    “As always you demonstrate your inability to admit that you are wrong. I don’t blame you though because once you get started you would here all day admitting to your many errors.”

    not wrong. your lack of an actual arguement is hilarious. you have nothing.

    “BTW: At what point did you deduce that I was a Raider fan? Is this another guess of yours? Because once again, you are wrong. ”

    i have to admit, i looked up and found your ridiculous trolling all over the internet under recon163 on the topic of farmers field its easy to see that a Mira Lomanian would love to have a new stadium, both for the NFL and one for the Dodgers too right? what are you if you dont route for the home team? I’ll track you down online when la brings in a team for a good ole “i told you so”

  60. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:29 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “difference between getting an update from aeg, and having a sitdown with aeg. clearly listed here. http://bit.ly/knHMed strike one.”

    Oh really?

    Let’s take a look at this article in depth shall we?

    In this article there is no mention of any team, except for the Vikings, that actually met with AEG.

    The actual quote is, “AEG president Tim Leiweke told The Orange County Register on Thursday that his group has been in contact with the Rams, Raiders, Jaguars, Vikings and Chargers, to gage interest in attracting a team to Los Angeles.

    An AEG source indicated on Friday that the group is actually in contact with more than the five teams cited by Leiweke. Those clubs are getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project.”

    In both paragraphs the writer notes that AEG has been ‘in contact’ with clubs. That means it could be a meeting, a phone call, an email, an exchange of Valentines cards, or a note passed under Goodell’s desk.

    Note that the writer does not say that AEG had an actual meeting with the clubs which Stan claims they did.

    In the second paragraph, a second AEG source indicates that AEG has been in contact with more clubs than the list provided by Tim Lieweke.

    Nowhere in the article are the Bills excluded from contention. That was all Stan’s doing.

    Next, in the article the writer notes that the Vikings did meet with AEG regarding the development around the new Vikings Stadium.

    Stan defines contact for the five teams noted by Tim Lieweke as a formal meeting to discuss a move, while using the same word to state the Bills are only relieving a briefing. Weird conclusion I know, but Stan is a little creepy, so keep that in mind.

    Also Stan states that the Raiders are primed to move yet in the same article we see this from Amy Trask CEO of the Raiders, “The Raiders came out in response to being mentioned among the teams that have talked with AEG, with CEO Amy Trask saying the “team is not for sale.”

    Yet from this Stan has deduced the team is set to move any day now. Weird, I know, but Stan is a little creepy about this topic so keep that in mind.

    So Stan, the umpire, needs new glasses before he calls balls and strikes and maybe we should keep him away from the Jr High Softball team as well…..

  61. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:34 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    ” . . .not spin just listing plain facts with citations from experts . . .”

    Pure spin. For the experts have not excluded the Bills have they?

    BTW Stan, I notice you cut entire paragraphs from stories and try to make it look like your own original though, it is not. You should credit writers whose musings you are stealing.

  62. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:42 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    This is what you wrote in a post on Sept 11 at 9:46:

    ” . . .the bills are in a better financial position current and projected, than the current state of the chargers, raiders, rams, and vikings. this makes them less likely to jump to LA.”

    And then today at 2:22 you wrote:

    “If you are moronically asking for an outlook on projected income for the team, i think theres a long line of people that would like to see that as well. again, very sad. strike 4″

    Stan, as noted above you claimed such projection exist, yet have the stupid gall to call me an idiot for asking for them. On Sept 11 you claimed the Bills were in better projected financial state. All I ask is that you back up what you said.

    But instead you admit you don’t have any projections. Which one is it Stan, you have them or you don’t.

    Yes very sad that you consider yourself an intellect in Buffalo. That is either a negative reflection on the people of Buffalo that you are considered a paragon of thought, or you are just a creepy madman. Which is it?

  63. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:49 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “i have to admit, i looked up and found your ridiculous trolling all over the internet under recon163″

    Of course you did Stan. You come cross as creepy and weird on the internet, why should you do anything to dispel that?

    ” . . .a Mira Lomanian would love to have a new stadium . . .”

    Noting where I live? Even creepier.

    “what are you if you dont route for the home team? ”

    Why would I route for the home team? I might root for them but I assume they have a traveling secretary to assist with routing.

    “I’ll track you down online . . .”

    Of course you will. That is what weird people do.

  64. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 8:02 PM

    @recon, another strikeout lol

    “AEG president Tim Leiweke told The Orange County Register on Thursday that his group has been in contact with the Rams, Raiders, Jaguars, Vikings and Chargers, to gage interest in attracting a team to Los Angeles. An AEG source indicated on Friday that the group is actually in contact with more than the five teams cited by Leiweke. Those clubs are getting monthly briefings from AEG on the progress of the downtown project.”

    another list upon which buffalo is not apart of. aeg is in contact with these 5 to gauge interest, and sending status updates to other organizations. not the same level as the mentioned 5.

    “Also Stan states that the Raiders are primed to move yet in the same article we see this from Amy Trask CEO of the Raiders, “The Raiders came out in response to being mentioned among the teams that have talked with AEG, with CEO Amy Trask saying the “team is not for sale.”

    actually the collective opinion of NFL contributors agree that the raiders are primed to move, and i cited it. you dont like it because la already had a shot with the raiders and they left.. the spin comes from you buddy. good try though haha

    “BTW Stan, I notice you cut entire paragraphs from stories and try to make it look like your own original though, it is not. You should credit writers whose musings you are stealing.”

    so, im the one that needs glasses while recon163 cant read a citation in or at the end of nearly every one of my paragraphs. i stand on the fact that my stance is well backed by experts, which is why my posts are chocked full of links. you continue to provide absolutely nothing. its very sad, and i am really starting to feel sorry for you, especially after reading your posts on these forbes and cbs sports stories. its great reading to see you get chased out of so many forums. i guess you are still pissed about prop 8.

  65. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 8:06 PM

    “”Stan, as noted above you claimed such projection exist, yet have the stupid gall to call me an idiot for asking for them. On Sept 11 you claimed the Bills were in better projected financial state. All I ask is that you back up what you said.

    But instead you admit you don’t have any projections. Which one is it Stan, you have them or you don’t.””

    agian, i dont have the projections, but FORBES sure has hell makes a great point… lol read little guy read.

    “Why would I route for the home team? I might root for them but I assume they have a traveling secretary to assist with routing.”

    AAAAAAND there it is, the grammatical corrections begin… thanks for playing recon163. once again. you lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  66. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 8:14 PM

    “I’ll track you down online . . .”

    “Of course you will. That is what weird people do.”

    lol, typing in recon163 into google produces many douchey results! cbs, forbes, many on pft, jacksonville newspaper sites, la news sites, and even your adultfriend finder profile- how embarrassing! all returns show the douchiness brand of posting which is produced by RECON163.

    HAHAHAHAUSUK!!!!!!

  67. stanmackley says: Sep 14, 2011 8:26 PM

    ok ok i admit, “ill track you down online” can seem a little creepy if taken out of context. you got me on that one.

  68. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 9:56 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “another list upon which buffalo is not apart of. aeg is in contact with these 5 to gauge interest, and sending status updates to other organizations. not the same level as the mentioned 5.”

    Not so according to the article. The secondary source noted that they are in contact with more than the clubs cited by Lieweke. No mention of a greater or lower level of contact anywhere in the story. No mention that one club is getting personal visits or email. Nothing of that sort at all. So once again when losing the argument you make it up.

    ” . . .actually the collective opinion of NFL contributors agree that the raiders are primed to move, and i cited it.”

    Oh I see the ‘experts’ and you know more about it than Amy Trask, CEO of the Raiders? Hilarious.

    “so, im the one that needs glasses while recon163 cant read a citation in or at the end of nearly every one of my paragraphs.”

    Not so. You liberally sprinkle stolen paragraphs throughout your posts.

    “i stand on the fact that my stance is well backed by experts, which is why my posts are chocked full of links.”

    Which is good because it helps to clarify all the misreadings you make.

    “you continue to provide absolutely nothing. ”

    LoL. Sure Stan. While you provide gold with your errors, lies , and outright misstatements. Yeah.

    “its great reading to see you get chased out of so many forums. i guess you are still pissed about prop 8.”

    Never been chased out yet. Not really upset about Prop 8 at all. Besides gay marriage is legal in NY and if I recall correctly Buffalo is in NY. And I am sure it is a subject you are passionate about.

  69. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 10:00 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “lol, typing in recon163 into google produces many douchey results! cbs, forbes, many on pft, jacksonville newspaper sites, la news sites, and even your adultfriend finder profile- how embarrassing! all returns show the douchiness brand of posting which is produced by RECON163.”

    Wow. Stan a Prop 8 mention and all this interest in me? I would be flattered but you probably look the homeless guy who turns out cardboard behind my building.

  70. recon163 says: Sep 14, 2011 10:06 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    ” agian, i dont have the projections, but FORBES sure has hell makes a great point… lol read little guy read.”

    So you were lying when you said the Bills were projected to have continuing great operating income numbers? I am shocked. (No not really, you lie all the time.)

    “AAAAAAND there it is, the grammatical corrections begin… thanks for playing recon163. once again. you lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Not a correction at all. You asked me if I would route for them and I said no. They have a traveling secretary for routing. I noted that I would root for them. Did I ask you if you meant something else or note that you said it incorrectly? Nope. Not at all, I just answered your question.

  71. stanmackley says: Sep 15, 2011 8:16 AM

    “Oh I see the ‘experts’ and you know more about it than Amy Trask, CEO of the Raiders? Hilarious.”

    would the ceo come out and say the team is for sale on the eve of the season? no. you are just inserting your own bs because of your feelings towards the raiders.

    “Not so. You liberally sprinkle stolen paragraphs throughout your posts.”

    lol, see the links genius. see the links. (i wrote that)scroll up and see if the post i wrote on la looks familiar.

    “LoL. Sure Stan. While you provide gold with your errors, lies , and outright misstatements. Yeah. ”

    point after point backed up by an actual citation. i see a trend here and conclude that you argue with inanimate objects as well.

    “Never been chased out yet. Not really upset about Prop 8 at all. Besides gay marriage is legal in NY and if I recall correctly Buffalo is in NY. And I am sure it is a subject you are passionate about.”

    I have about 8 links to forums to which you have been destroyed and “chased” out. and you put lots of work in campaigning “vote no to prop8″ bless your heart you lost. ps my state just voted to put a referendum on the ballot to define marraige.

    “So you were lying when you said the Bills were projected to have continuing great operating income numbers? I am shocked. (No not really, you lie all the time.)”

    again, not MY numbers, I dont have any projections/calculations. thats why i put up the forbes link. thanks for playing !!!

  72. stanmackley says: Sep 15, 2011 8:30 AM

    Recon163′s reason #1 on why buffalo will move to his beloved LA (because he doesnt like the raiders anymore): “Because they are near the bottom of the revenue charts.”

    #2: “Because their lease is expiring soon.”

    #3: “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson.”

    #4:”Because Buffalo is a dying city. ”

    #5: “Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill.”

    LOL!!!! refusing to read the facts posted which clearly show:
    #1- Buffalo’s program works, at the top of the league in profit margins, and has been working for a long time.
    #2- the contingency plan is already in place to resign the lease before the 2012 season.
    #3- #3 and #5 lose the whole argument. speculating on when you think the owner might die and what will happen upon such, is not worth banking an argument on.
    #4- All of western new york is hurting, other football cities are “dying” in worse/similar situations but are not jumping. this is not an indicator.
    #5- a team can only be bought when it comes up for sale. speculate on, speculator.

  73. recon163 says: Sep 15, 2011 10:09 AM

    “#1- Buffalo’s program works, at the top of the league in profit margins, and has been working for a long time.”

    Of course Stan ignores the fact that payroll was slashed by $20 million which increased operating income by about $20 million. He also refuses to use an average OI figure of $31 million over a ten year period. Instead he just wants to talk about a single year because it makes it look better than it really is.

    “#2- the contingency plan is already in place to resign the lease before the 2012 season.”

    Of course it hasn’t happened yet. 

    “#3- #3 and #5 lose the whole argument. speculating on when you think the owner might die and what will happen upon such”

    No speculation here. Stan’s own articles note that RW has stated the team will be sold upon his death. Well quoted and known in the Buffalo News. What we see is Stan’s inability to comprehend that which he does not agree upon. But then again, Stan isn’t very smart.

    “#4- All of western new york is hurting, other football cities are “dying” in worse/similar situations but are not jumping. this is not an indicator.”

    This a standard argument diversion tactic by Stan. He dismisses articles which note that Buffalo may no longer be a viable market because they were written during a down season. And at the same time he ignores the economic figures for a down season. In short he does not want to note anything that could refute his point of view. The true sign of a stupid person.

    “#5- a team can only be bought when it comes up for sale.”

    Never said anything different. As usual Stan just adds random made up thoughts to the conversation in a lame attempt to look intelligent.

  74. stanmackley says: Sep 15, 2011 2:42 PM

    a single year was used to make a point. not just any year was used. the most important year was used as a indicator. that doesn’t make it “look better than what it is” that actually shows what it really is, and avoids speculation.

    yes the lease has been resigned yet, but by this indicator, the la stadium hasnt happened yet. ouch, burned.

    saying buffalo will go to la because ralph is old just doesnt work. again, banking your argument on the fact that team ownership will change when the owner ceases to exist is ridiculous. if you argue that la gets the bills then you have to accept the fact that this will only happen if ralph dies. i dont blame you here though, every one of your “points” requires quite the imagination. i dont think you can help it though its ok.

    “standard argument diversion tactic”lol. not ignored, just weighed and found lacking. just like you! for every article on why buffalo MAY not be a viable market for football (you have ONE) there are how many going negative for the LA football market?? and how many links were provided that support the success of football in buffalo? my citations outnumber yours, so who exactly is the ignorant one?

    I said: a team can only be bought when it comes up for sale.
    RECON163 SAID: “Never said anything different. As usual Stan just adds random made up thoughts to the conversation in a lame attempt to look intelligent.”
    RECON163 SAID: “Because an owner can buy the Bills for $900 million, move the franchise to a new stadium in LA and see an increase in value of over $400 mill”
    so your shortfalls continues to be highlighted because you bank on hypothiticals. When will this sale take place?
    again thanks for playing, and as always, you lose and lose hard

  75. stanmackley says: Sep 15, 2011 3:17 PM

    and whatever lackey is in charge of filtering comments does one horrible job. they wouldnt let me post until i took RECON163’s quoted comments out of my post.

  76. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 12:34 PM

    @ Stan:

    Since you claim they exist: Can you post up articles that are negative about the LA market?

    Cheers……….

  77. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 4:42 PM

    i feel like im throwing these to a little hungry Chihuahua to devour. but surely you arent suggesting what i think you are suggesting? read these in your spare time, and stay focused on your original argument as opposed to running down rabbit trails. keep focused k lil guy? since you will pick it all apart anyway, i originally said “there are how many going negative for the LA football market?” heres just a few i found while drunk after toasting to ralph wilson.

    “Los Angeles has been an afterthought for a league that has successfully proven you don’t necessarily need to be in big markets to become the biggest juggernaut in professional sports.” http://es.pn/gd4zR2

    “[AEG]stadium proponents will overstate the project’s economic benefits and understate its costs to the public.” http://bit.ly/hkw0L8

    “Don’t let over-optimistic proponents keep the Los Angeles City Council from asking hard financial questions about a proposed NFL stadium downtown.” http://lat.ms/nvKeim

    “Skepticism isn’t only understandable, it’s more than expected” http://es.pn/nHRB55

    Then there is a historical argument to be made on football in LA http://bit.ly/qBZRv8

    “Dan Van Wie’s 27 Reasons an NFL Team in Los Angeles Will Never Work” http://bit.ly/oFzOkt

    Why is [this http://bit.ly/akMqML ] statement by Goodell a clear indication that the NFL has no intention of partnering with Roski and Semcken?

    “The University of Southern California may make bringing an NFL team to Los Angeles more difficult unless the city agrees to change its current lease and give up more control over the Coliseum.” http://bit.ly/qiB4e1

    “We already have two big college teams and the NFL brings nothing to the table” http://sbn.to/eQAnqx

    “NFL In Los Angeles? No Thank You” http://huff.to/fBoVPq

    keep in mind, i have made it known that i am not against la having a team, and I believe a new stadium would do la great success with a new team. it just wont be the bills. none of the hurdles are too big to overcome, and i dont buy into nearly any of the opposing arguments to la getting a team/stadium, but understand, the dissenting opinion on why the nfl wont/shouldnt work in la is there.

  78. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 6:07 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “i feel like im throwing these to a little hungry Chihuahua to devour. but surely you arent suggesting what i think you are suggesting?”

    Don’t know, what do you think I am suggesting?

    “since you will pick it all apart anyway . . .”

    Well of course I will, primarily you because I take time to read them an understand the whole of the article. As opposed to what you do.

    As an example of how you make it up as you go along:

    “[AEG]stadium proponents will overstate the project’s economic benefits and understate its costs to the public.” http://bit.ly/hkw0L8

    This article really doesn’t offer any negatives does it? It is five paragraphs long and two of those paragraphs recount what has happened to date.

    But the article does not say that the NFL shouldn’t be in LA, now does it?

    And this another one of your links that stretch logic. ““The University of Southern California may make bringing an NFL team to Los Angeles more difficult unless the city agrees to change its current lease and give up more control over the Coliseum.”

    How is this article a negative against the LA market? The article discusses how USC wants concessions from the Coliseum in order to allow the NFL to temporarily use the facility.

    And this one talks about the City of Industry project: “Why is [this http://bit.ly/akMqML ] statement by Goodell a clear indication that the NFL has no intention of partnering with Roski and Semcken?”

    But it has no negatives against the LA market, if anything it is a slam against the Roski project, not the AEG project.

    But than again and as has been proven, analysis and reading are clearly not your strengths.

  79. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 6:13 PM

    Stan, mjrusher,

    This is from today’s Buffalo News:

    Ralph Wilson quote:
    “It gives the medium-market and small-market teams the chance to be competitive with the revenue sharing,” he said. “With the small markets, for example Buffalo, I don’t expect to take in the revenue that New York does, but I expect to get enough in the CBA to keep going. I think the new CBA does that. I think it’s fair to all three sides — the fans, the clubs and the players.

    “I’m in the game not to make money but because I love it, just like the fans in Buffalo, who are so passionate about the team. So right now, I’m having a lot of fun.”

    A while back I noted that the present profits may be good enough for Ralph Wilson, but they may not be enough for a new owner. Ralph says he isn’t in it for the money, you should hope the next guy feels the same.

    mjrusher: I notice that my reply to you was deleted. Sorry about that but I did want one point to be clear.

    You wrote: ‘whether or not you think this will be enough for the next would be owner is irrelevant.’

    I would offer that the reverse is also true, your thought that it is enough is also irrelevant. It is up to the new guy isn’t it?

  80. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 6:43 PM

    “A while back I noted that the present profits may be good enough for Ralph Wilson, but they may not be enough for a new owner. Ralph says he isn’t in it for the money, you should hope the next guy feels the same.”

    do i really have to say this again??? the conversation/argument regarding a new owner in relation to the bills moving to LA is irrelevant. if you right off the fact that the lease re-signing “hasnt happened yet” then live by your own words. stay focused tard, how does your last post show the likely hood of the bills moving to LA???? because of the “next guy”??? lol

    also, despite the fact the all the articles show some sort of negative towards an LA football team, there are still good articles there that you are ignoring. but again, I DONT AGREE WITH ANY OF THEM ANYWAYS. the fact is, you asked for links, i provided- they exist.

  81. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 6:46 PM

    Here’s a headline,

    “Buffalo Bills move to Los Angeles Because a Change of Ownership Might Happen One Day”

    Do you have the link???

  82. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 7:14 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “do i really have to say this again??? the conversation/argument regarding a new owner in relation to the bills moving to LA is irrelevant.”

    Not so Stan.

    You note that the team makes more than enough money in Buffalo to remain. In fact it is a major point of yours. You believe that is relevant, don’t you?

    This article offers a contradiction to that notion.

    “stay focused tard . . .”

    What is the matter Stan? Don’t like having your arguments shredded by your own Buffalo papers?

    “how does your last post show the likely hood of the bills moving to LA???? because of the “next guy”??? lol”

    It doesn’t, but it does illustrate the next guy may not be making the kind of money he needs to make his purchase pay off. Something I have said all along.

    “also, despite the fact the all the articles show some sort of negative towards an LA football team, there are still good articles there that you are ignoring.”

    I am not ignoring them. I am reading them. Something you should have tried before you posted them up.

    “the fact is, you asked for links, i provided- they exist.”

    Well not really. You provided links, but so far none of them are what you state they are.

  83. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 7:27 PM

    again, i dont buy into the the arguments against the LA market, but you offer a rebuttal to 2 out of 10. even if i conceded and nitpicked back with you, it still would remain, that there is dissenting opinion on whether or not the LA market would work this time around. thats a fact.

    “It doesn’t, but it does illustrate the next guy may not be making the kind of money he needs to make his purchase pay off. Something I have said all along. ”

    hasnt happened yet. isnt that what you said? HAHAHAHA. agian, your point here is that the bills go to la because ralph wilson is old. ridiculous.

  84. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 7:33 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “Buffalo Bills move to Los Angeles Because a Change of Ownership Might Happen One Day” Do you have the link???”

    Exactly as you have written it? No.

    But I have offered you many articles that note why they are candidates.

    But here is another good quote:

    “If he (RW) dies, the Bills would be at or near the top of any list for possible relocation,” Jerry Sullivan of the Buffalo News wrote (via PFT). “Wilson has no known succession plan. He plans to have the team auctioned to the highest bidder. It’s hard to imagine the top bid coming from someone who intends to keep the Bills in this market.”

  85. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    Stan, with every post you simply expose your inability to comprehend what is written.

    “agian, your point here is that the bills go to la because ralph wilson is old. ridiculous.”

    Nope, I said that when he dies the team will be sold. Then it is up to the new owner to stay in Buffalo or move.

    Really Stan, you want to act knowledgeable, at least try to remember what is written.

  86. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 7:45 PM

    “If he (RW) dies, the Bills would be at or near the top of any list for possible relocation,”

    i rest my case.

    if he dies. if there is no succession plan. if the team is auctioned. IF IF IF IF IF IF.

    try again?

  87. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 7:53 PM

    again, why would anybody debate the fact that team ownership changes once the owner dies??? are you mentally handicapped???

  88. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 7:58 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    Went through a few more of your anti LA links. 7 out of 10 now:

    “Don’t let over-optimistic proponents keep the Los Angeles City Council from asking hard financial questions about a proposed NFL stadium downtown.”

    Not a negative comment to be found. The author is pointing out that one should be concerned about the financial statements and commitments of public monies in regards to building the stadium.

    Should we note the points are rendered moot by the agreement of the LA City Council to move ahead with the plan?

    “Skepticism isn’t only understandable, it’s more than expected”

    I see nothing anti LA market in this article at all.

    “Then there is a historical argument to be made on football in LA

    Wikipedia? Really? Check out the paragraph on downtown Los Angeles, I left something for you there Stan.

    “Dan Van Wie’s 27 Reasons an NFL Team in Los Angeles Will Never Work”

    Wiki and Bleacher Report? Hilarious. Oh yeah BR is so well researched. I love this annotation as to the why the NFL won’t work in LA:

    “Surfing: Maybe you are not in to laying on the beach and working on your tan. Perhaps you like to be more active and want to take up surfing. There are lots of people that love to surf in Southern California. If you aren’t able to tame a surfboard, there are boogie boards, wake boards, something for everyone.”

    Hilarious!

    “We already have two big college teams and the NFL brings nothing to the table”

    So this is a fan site with the author speculating on whether or not a city can support two college teams and two NFL teams. But he didn’t say it wouldn’t work.

    “but understand, the dissenting opinion on why the nfl wont/shouldnt work in la is there.”

    Granted, as the finances and public monies should be questioned, (Not something you do NOT do in Buffalo.) but your references offer no legitimate discussion on the subject.

  89. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 8:06 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “again, why would anybody debate the fact that team ownership changes once the owner dies??? are you mentally handicapped???”

    I’m not arguing it you are.

    On Sept 7 at 9:28 am I stated:

    “Because it is well known they will be sold upon the passing of Mr. Wilson.”

    And you replied on Sept 8 at 7:27 pm:

    “Well known by whom??? you have connections to the city of BUF that nobody in there knows?? LOL”

    And ever since then you have both accepted the fact and denied it. Now you are back to accepting it. Thanks for agreeing that I was correct way back on Sept 7.

  90. recon163 says: Sep 16, 2011 8:12 PM

    @ stanmackley:

    “if he dies. if there is no succession plan. if the team is auctioned. IF IF IF IF IF IF.”

    You need to reread that quote again.

    If he dies? Stan, you yourself have noted that all NFL owners will eventually die. So I think we can agree that it is simply a matter of when rather than ‘if”.

    Now note the rest of the quote does not use the term ‘if’ at all when referring to RW.

    “Wilson has no known succession plan.”

    “Has no…” is the operative phrase here.

    “He plans to have the team auctioned to the highest bidder.”

    No ‘if’ there.

    “try again?”

    Nope. No reason to, once again you have proven yourself wrong.

  91. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 9:50 PM

    “I’m not arguing it you are.”

    This was written by recon163 on 9/16/2011.

    Congrats. you are a dumba$$. lol.

  92. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 9:51 PM

    “I’m not arguing it you are.”

    This was written by recon163 on 9/16/2011.

    i just had to post it again, its that good.

  93. stanmackley says: Sep 16, 2011 9:55 PM

    if ralph dies you will have an argument. until then, i will hunt you down online as soon as LA gets a team that isn’t the buffalo bills. and rub it in your greasy little face.
    then i will repost all of your words from this thread.

    i mean seriously, this is some quality s. i cant thank you enough you have no idea.

  94. recon163 says: Sep 17, 2011 12:11 AM

    @ stanmackley:

    “if ralph dies you will have an argument. until then, i will hunt you down online . . .”

    If? I thought you agreed that Ralph will die?

    “then i will repost all of your words from this thread.”

    Enjoy.

    “i cant thank you enough you have no idea.”

    No problem, glad to help you recognize your failings.

  95. recon163 says: Sep 17, 2011 12:35 AM

    @ stanmackley:

    “i just had to post it again, its that good.”

    It is. Just think how little you knew when you came here and how much I have educated you. (Not sure it is sticking, but you are a special person Stan. Have another fruit cup.)

    Hey, I will be at the Emmy’s this weekend. I will wear a Bill’s pin just for you.

    I probably shouldn’t have told you that, but I doubt you could afford air fare to LA. But it looks like you will continue to stalk me via the web. As you noted earlier this month, you would much rather hear about how much better my life is than everyone else’s. And I believe you said “that makes for great reading.”

    I am sure you will monitor and try to keep yourself apprized of the various going ons in my life Stan, especially over the winter months in Buffalo. Enjoy, Stan, enjoy.

  96. stanmackley says: Sep 17, 2011 7:45 AM

    “If? I thought you agreed that Ralph will die? ”

    mind boggling i know, mortality is such a tricky thing. bless your heart.

    “Hey, I will be at the Emmy’s this weekend. I will wear a Bill’s pin just for you. ”

    lol im glad you managed to nail a ticket down for that one. make sure you bleach out you a$$hole for the dudes from jersey shore you know how they like it.

Leave a Reply

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