Dome Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 What was the reasoning for the rule in the first place? And why change it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceman80 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 10 hours ago, footbull3196 said: This was my favorite comment "It’s tough not being allowed to own 3 professional sports teams. It’s my biggest issue in life, obviously" Top 1% 1st world problems lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramxel Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 37 minutes ago, riceman80 said: Top 1% 1st world problems lol People who own 100million represente around 0,05%, so billionaires are even lower than that.... A more accurate statement would be 0,00001% 1st world problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 13 hours ago, DigInBoys said: 13 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said: "in markets containing OTHER NFL teams" ie you couldn't own an NFL team in one city and another pro team(ie basketball, baseball) in another city which had a NFL team. To my knowledge Paul Allen owned the Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers. Portland doesn't have an NFL team, so Allen was allowed to own both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areksoo Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 13 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said: Wait...so then how did Benson buy the NO Pelicans when he ha already owned the NO Saints? Same deal with the Pegulas and the city of Buffalo... they own nearly all pro/semi pro team in the city (I think except the Bisons). But like others have pointed out... same city seems fine. 1 hour ago, Dome said: What was the reasoning for the rule in the first place? And why change it now? With 2 owners passing away... 2 teams might be up for sale. Maybe to attract new buyers who don't want to sell the teams they own just to buy a NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 So the Wilfs can buy the Timberwolves if they wanted? I like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankWilliams Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 This is so Mark Cuban can buy a team now, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 57 minutes ago, TENINCH said: So the Wilfs can buy the Timberwolves if they wanted? I like that! No, it allows them to buy a sports team in a different market. They could have always owned the wolves because its the same market I think that the timing of this coincides nicely with the fact the Seahawks will be for sale soon. I think they are opening the door for an NBA owner to buy an NFL team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, N4L said: No, it allows them to buy a sports team in a different market. They could have always owned the wolves because its the same market I think that the timing of this coincides nicely with the fact the Seahawks will be for sale soon. I think they are opening the door for an NBA owner to buy an NFL team oh I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 2 hours ago, kramxel said: People who own 100million represente around 0,05%, so billionaires are even lower than that.... A more accurate statement would be 0,00001% 1st world problems. With ~7,700,000,000 people in the world and 2208 billionaires in the world, this is actually more of a 0.00000029% 1st world problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Dome said: What was the reasoning for the rule in the first place? And why change it now? One reason could have been so that an owner of a team in City A couldn't buy up all of the NHL/NBA/MLB teams in City B, which is also the home of their rivals team in the NFL, and then try to use that to somehow force that other team out of the city? Or maybe it was to keep owners of NHL/NBA/MLB teams from being able to move in on their product and try to sabotage the NFL somehow? Doesn't seem like either of those reasons are good or even likely to happen in 2018, and maybe that's why it's been changed, it could have possibly made since 30 or 40+ years ago when the NFL wasn't nearly as big of a deal comparatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 5 hours ago, TENINCH said: So the Wilfs can buy the Timberwolves if they wanted? I like that! But...that means he'd have to own the Timberwolves. NOBODY wants to own the Timberwolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 Gonna be interesting to see how this affects who buys the Seahawks and Panthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 13 hours ago, ET80 said: But...that means he'd have to own the Timberwolves. NOBODY wants to own the Timberwolves. Kevin Garnett wants to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 13 hours ago, SwoleXmad said: Gonna be interesting to see how this affects who buys the Seahawks and Panthers. Thought the Panthers were already sold? 4 minutes ago, TENINCH said: Kevin Garnett wants to Because that's the only way he gets back onto the court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.