Delete This Account

it was hailed as "the best" of the teams that opted out of NFL plan by Larry Kennan, executive director of NFL Coaches Association. and yet, Kennan told the AP this evening that to his knowledge Bills have become first of those teams that opted out of plan to suspend payments to their plan. full story out on wire about a minute ago. ... gotta run. jw

evidently, there is a failsafe to the doomsday plan, after all. jw i had attempted to fix it, but it wouldn't allow me to post the correction.

actually, my published stories reach an audience far larger than beck's, given the breadth of AP's reach. but your point's taken about me posting here ... jw

sneaking in one last post ... just in case. glenn beck's a fool. there, needed to get that one out one last time. jw

what kinda deal? what are you going on about? this is silly. by your standards -- no one with the lack of apparent talent (as judged by you) should be considered for a white house visit -- why then was the nation not appalled when Nancy Reagan took part in a video with such questionable talents as casey kasem, latoya jackson and known steroid user Arnold Schwarzeneggar as part of her "just say no," campaign. and need i point out, david hasselhoff, was involved, too. truly, a First Lady should have recognized these people for their lack of talent and nixed this whole deal. for shame. jw

the deal was negotiated for 5 years. from what i understand, talks were strictly limited to that. 5 years. jw

so there is no such thing as poetic license. the fact that English Beat railed against Margaret Thatcher should preclude them from being invited to any Labor function. and that the Replacements collectively affiliated themselves to Bastards, should cause their remaining members to now somehow be connected to Arnold Schwarzenegger? and Neil Sedeka was truly against Prince Charles, given his version of "Diana," and Lynyrd Skynard was against Neil Young, even though he was invited to the post-crash funeral. lyrics are lyrics, intentions are a little different. and for those who wonder about the true meaning of "Who Shot the Sherriff," well, it's a cultural thing. Sherriff's in Jamaica were generally white, and men of authority, thus making them the antagonizer, as opposed to the deputies, who were generally black and native Jamaicans. so in what is essentially a protest song, it would be a bigger crime to kill a deputy. i'm guessing toby keith isn't a big hit in iraq, and the Who failed to die before they actually got old. but if we're going to be debating music and credibility, i really don't think the right wing faction on this board has an addled leg to stand on, given that the blue-suited establishment has generally been on the wrong side of the common people, who's only voice in creative debate is left to music. unless, of course, you're a dan hill and john ford coley fan, and that's essentially your problem. replace "Common" with "Joe Strummer," and see where that gets the anti-Common arguments. how Reagan ever got away with Springsteen's "Born in the USA," is another matter altogether, given that, lyrically, it was a Viet Nam protest song. but the tin-eared and blind masses ate that one up. can it not be given that minorities have been discriminated against by those in power? is it not then accepted that those aggrieved parties voice their frustrations through what avenues are open to them, literature and music. gawd, imagine if the dixie chicks were invited to the white house. or sean penn. and yet ted nugent gets a free pass? this is a pinhole argument, where the right has railed against celebrities from having an opinion -- particularly when it's left-leaning, and yet hypocritacally blind when it comes to those few celebrities whose opinion favors theirs. jeeeeesuz, this is what is left of debate in this nation. time to get nero's violin. so long its rightly, tuned, i guess. jw.

of course this worked for baseball. oh, wait ... jw

to me, the reason the movie didn't work is because diane keaton was pathetically miscast as the mother. (well, keaton and miscast just about go together.) as she usually does, she would spontaneously burst out in a laugh and wind up giggling some line. how this counts as "acting," i don't know. and then, from what i recall, in the midst of dinner, there was some strange conversation that dealt with some gay issue, which led to an awkward moment for the audience, which somehow was supposed to be deep, but instead lurched the story into a cringe-induced direction that no one in their right mind could ever have envisioned to go. rachel macadam proved inept, as she's done in most of her movies since Wedding Crashers. i nearly forgot sarah jessica parker was in it. and the fact that writer/director thomas gordon bezucha was selected as "Variety's 10 to watch screenwriters in 2000," puts into complete question Variety's credibility as an entertainment bible. this was a movie in need of direction, an editor, and either more or less drugs on the set. it's difficult to tell on the drug issue, because this thing was so uptight in its pure and utter incoherence as a story, that not even the deaf and blind would be able to enjoy it. this nearly gave me the dry heaves it was so sickening. it was a bad, bad movie in which the more i drag it up from the deep dark recesses of my memory, just might lead me to believe it was among the worst. and anybody involved in it should be banned from stepping within 100 yards of a movie set for the near, and perhaps, far future. farts, i believe, have screened better than this crap. jw

wouldn't know the costs, but it would be a major project. and could they do it without disrupting Blue Jays' season? jw

no marketing could've saved this mess. the acting was terrible. the script unruly. the directing non-existent. the only way to market this would've been by billing it: "want to see how not to make a movie: Well, this is it." there was nothing dramatic or dark about it. it was a pathetic, utter, unwatchable mess. it might not be the worst, but it's not far upwind from any other stinker. jw

Tanenbaum's primary interest is in MLSE. and you have to be careful when it comes to what he's worth. what he's worth includes his assets, a majority of that is his interest in MLSE. he would have to cash that in in order to take a run at anything else, which would be counter-intuitive, given that his primary interest is controlling MLSE. in this equation, it's one or the other, and his interest in an NFL franchise is secondary at best. also, i've spoken to numerous people about Tanenbaum when this deal was first struck. the Bills-In-Toronto series was largely -- almost solely -- Rogers production. in fact, wouldn't you find it curious that Rogers budgeted in paying all the money to fund the series. the $78 million was on their books. there was no mention of Tanenbaum or any other outside involvement. as for your stadium stuff, there is no reason to believe Canadian or Ontario taxpayers will pony up a large chunk of cash for a new stadium. a large amount is going to have to come from private sources. jw

it's difficult to assess Tanenbaum's worth when it comes to having cash on hand. i've read reports where his estimated worth is between $500 million and $1 billion or so. however, much of that worth is tied up in his interest in MLSE. and i can't see Larry giving up his shares in MLSE and a business he enjoys to go gamble on an NFL franchise, as well as the new stadium that would have to go with it. Ted Rogers wasn't an NFL man, but he was a big Toronto booster and a visionary, who had both the resources and the willpower to go after this deal and make it work. Tanenbaum was brought in, but regarded as a minor player. and as i've noted, i don't believe he's still tied to the Bills-In-Toronto series. the way it's been explained to me, there are a limited number of people with the type of money to take a run at an NFL franchise. one of those would be the Oilers new owner, the Rexall guy (Katz, i think). another would be Balsillie, the RIM guy. the Bronfman's are out of sports. Jim Pattison in Vancouver might have the money, but he's not into the sports business. and the Rogers family hasn't expressed much interest in pushing this NFL thing forward. it should also be noted that while the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund has control of MLSE, the NFL would not allow a similar arrangement when it comes to owning one of its franchises. let's remember, establishing a franchise in Toronto is close to a $2 billion proposition. first you have to buy the team. then you have to find it a place to play. i'm not saying its not doable ... but ... jw

unless he's won the lottery (twice, maybe). jw

oh, the Family Stone is gawd-awful, pretty much unwatchable. it's supposed to be a comedy, i think, and yet it's not even funny in the worst of ways. and there's some cringe-worthy dinner table conversation midway through the movie which nearly led me to shut it off. i didn't because i wanted to watch this car wreck to its utter end. it was miscast, poorly directed and featured diane keaton, who just might be the worst actor/actress around. why she continues to get parts, never mind broke into the business in the first place, is beyond me. Alexander by comparison is Citizen Kane. jw

i personally think Hunter S. Thompson's "Rum Diaries" and Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye," and several Charles Bukowski books are interesting reads, too. and yet i find it quite easy to not include any links to their tombs for some reason. jw

uhh, you do know that Gene Upshaw died, right? jw

why blame Upshaw? he did his job, didn't he? jw

Tanenbaum does not have the money to have controlling interest in an NFL franchise, including the Bills. in fact, i'm not entirely sure that he is still part of the Bills-In-Toronto series, as he had a very small interest in this to begin with. and no, i don't think this merited another thread. jw

it wasn't off the record. i just can't remember if i reported it. and as this is a public forum, i'd prefer keeping some information to myself. jw

i am simply noting that your initial premise -- the granting of an option to buy -- as being questionable at best. sure, there could be someone in the future. the future, however, is unknown. jw

to answer your question, Did Ralph Already Grant Toronto An Option to Buy: it's highly unlikely, vastly improbable. i've spoken to enough people on both sides of the border to make this statement. entering a five-year agreement with Rogers and entering a sale agreement to purchase the team are two different animals altogether. it's not out of the question the Bills will relocate to Toronto. that said, it won't be the result of any side deal already having been made. -- first, there is no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise. Phil Lind has even acknowledged that point. -- second, if there was a deal, why is there continued talk of attempts to lure other franchises to Toronto. that talk was prevelant when the Bills In Toronto series was first announced, and remains the case now. -- third, lack of a game-ready stadium, requirement of NFL approval, political ramifications on both sides of the border all stand as significant obstacles for a deal to become reality. jw

very cool. i never had the chance to party with them, but saw the 'Mats live twice, and Stinson live the last time he came through town a few years back. i also interviewed Tommy for a piece on the tour. cool guy. jw

i don't know, but from the few clips i've seen from Kevin James' new movie, "Zookeeper," that one might be a true contender before this thread finishes its course. jw

as a big fan of the Replacements, i don't think Paul Westerberg or Tommy Stinson have enough money to purchase a team or try to start one up, never mind establish a league. and while Westerberg's written about baseball and hockey, i'm not sure if he's an NFL fan. given their fall-down-drunk style of playing, it would be humorous to see them get a chance at this. jw