dubs

And, my apologies to getting a little political with posts at the beginning of this discussion. I didn't realize that there was a separate forum for that.

There is nothing wrong with getting in a conversation about things. I think healthy discussion about topics is a good thing. To be honest, I was actually intrigued by reading some opposing views. I think it only helps everyone better understand all the angles about an issue. But, the downside is when you get into a conversation with someone who's dug in and has no desire to learn, but rather would like to preach. You also run the risk of it devolving into name-calling or insulting.

Same here. I never got that either. This wasn't an issue when I was growing up (at least not in the public domain), so maybe things would have been different, but I remember being taught the opposite. Love your neighbor as yourself. Religion, I do believe, is a very good thing. But like anything else when taken to the extreme it can be bad. I also believe that 99% (meaning the vast majority, not an actual stat) of religious (all religions) people are good people. But the 1% get the attention and generalizations are made. It's unfortunate but not surprising.

Well, I missed it, but I believe you. To me, it's a moot point. We live in a country where people should be able to live without fear or shame for who they are. This includes sexual orientation and religion. I am in the camp that is relatively sick of the social change campaigns, primarily because I think most of the country is supportive this principle already. However, the discussions about it are fascinating.

I didn't get the sense that Tim was saying it was a choice. He as simply offering an alternative view of the topic. It seemed to me he just wanted to have a discussion about it. Frankly I am rather surprised at how quickly it turns into attacking Tim. I was looking forward to reading that discussion between some members, but it never really materialized. Was just Tim offering some contra-points and everyone else attacking him.

You might want to preface what you say with "I believe"

Haha. Sure thing. Some random dude from a random website is being quoted as deep and profound? Look, people want to make a big deal out of it, that's their prerogative. I look at is as embarrassing for that person. I've got great friends that are gay and haven't looked at a gay person differently in my entire adult life (and I'm not some 20 something hipster doofus). So yeah, it's not a big deal. But, just like every blowhard, if you find someone who says something you don't agree with, tell them to shut the f up. Classic

I don't think you're taking anything away from JR, I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is. Just read up a little on what American society was like back in the 40s and 50s and how blacks were treated and then honestly ask yourself if these are comparable situations. They are not. The overwhelming majority of people either openly support gays or don't care about someone's sexuality.

I'm not going to go into the hundreds of differences, but when Jackie Robinson came to the Dodgers he came from the Negro league. Brown v Board of Education hadn't even happened yet. The KKK was thriving. He was constantly getting death threats. Being gay is not a big deal in today's society.

And that changes my opinion of him by exactly 0.00%. It's 2014, this should be a nonissue. I could care less what someone does in their own private life. Gay, Straight, Black, White, Man, Woman, any other category you can put somone in...WHO CARES? We'd be in much better shape as a society if everyone stopped worrying about what 'category' someone was in and just started judging people by the 'content of their character' as MLK said. That includes making a big deal out of something that no one really has a problem with to begin with. Comparing this to Jackie Robinson is ludicrous.

Love that first draft! Am I the only one that likes Louis Nix III? I know it's not a need, but man he's a beast. Would definitely help stop the run.

yes, absolutely. keeping all else equal and assuming Jim didn't get hurt in any of them. I get the point of this though, I think statistically speaking there would be a debate, but since no QB has ever won 3 in a row, let alone 4…I am not sure how there could even be a debate.

If the Bills won all 4 Super Bowls, then yes, it would have been the greatest team of all time and Jim Kelly would have been the greatest QB of all time. Not even a debate. He led an innovative offense that consistently was at the top of the league in offensive statistics. He called plays at the line. He led comebacks, won division titles, won AFC titles. Would have been the only QB ever to win 4 super bowls in a row.

haha…sounds good. Honestly, maybe I made that assumption. Being in the investment industry for a while, that's what I read. It would make a ton of sense to structure it that way if that's not what they intended. It would set up a legal structure that's audited and overseen. So while an investor would never make money, they would always be assured that their 'investment' would be managed per the guidelines of the fund and a legal recourse if the Bills or the new ownership didn't pay back the loan from the fund.

Exactly!! I think we are splitting hairs here. You don't get equity in the Bills, you get equity in the established Fund. You don't make a loan to the Bills, the Fund makes a loan to the Bills.

Yes…there is transparency in the actual payment of the funds. There is little transparency in how that gets decided. It really doesn't even matter what the actual payment from the Fund Alliance is called, but you are not correct. It is a loan. Maybe you are just not understanding how it works. The people who contribute to the fund are doing so by purchasing equity in the fund. They get shares in return. Part of the conditions of purchasing the shares is a lock-in provision, meaning you can't sell your shares for a pre-determined period of time (or whatever the provisions are, point is that the people in the fund are shareholders, not debt holders). The shares sold create this pool of capital in a legal structure called, The Fund. The Fund then lends money to the Bills, at 0%, that is then paid back to the fund according to the terms of the loans. In the article they referenced a 10-year repayment period. It is in fact a loan. I get the skepticism and the hurdles that are present, but dismissing innovative and good ideas is just silly. Especially when most criticisms are just incorrect.

Re: your first scenario, I don't think that's factually correct. First, the purpose is obviously NOT to be a bridge to get a new owner financing until they can move the team. Not even sure where that is coming from. Second, an interest-free loan is exactly that. It's a loan that gets paid back at 0% interest. A gift would not need to be paid back. Third, and you may have missed this in the article, the loan would get paid back over a period of time and put back into the fund. It could then be borrowed again to help offset the lack of revenue from other sources, like PSLs or Luxury suites. The idea is that saving 10 - 20m per year in interest costs would be an attractive asset for a new owner. Finally, I don't think anyone would claim this is THE solution. It's simply a private citizen idea that could help keep the team here. There would need to be other things that would also have to happen, but I certainly applaud the effort.

Incredible Post! Bravo!

Here's the issue that I am not sure some people are understanding: The inevitable sale of the team is coming. When that comes, new ownership uncertainty will make the Bills moving a distinct possibility. The area is not as competitive as others, for a number of reasons, but that's not to say it's not viable. Some solutions that have been tossed out there are either just hoping for a good outcome or not possible. It's not possible for the individuals to get equity in the team. The NFL made sure of that. In case people haven't noticed, the public appetite for using taxpayer sourced funding for projects like these is seriously on the decline. What this group is doing is being proactive. The target audience for this "fund" is those individuals who want to do what they can to keep the team here and can afford to contribute a little to that effort. I am not sure how big that market is, but there are definitely going to be some takers.

So you would or would not be in favor of this idea. It doesn't mean you would have to contribute to the fund, but does the idea appeal to you. From reading your posts its seems like you don't favor public funding, nor this idea (or at least wouldn't contribute).

I don't know the answer to that question. I think there is some impact to the region, although my feeling is that it's more emotional than financial or tangible. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with your proposal, but I am not sure that it's "appropriate". That's why a potential solution like the one being proposed would be great if it ever came to fruition. People that care enough and want to help keep the team in town can contribute to that fund.

The only issue with this is a principle one. Do you think the best use of taxpayer money is to help fund an NFL team? While I love the Bills and don't want them going anywhere, I struggle with this issue. I have a fundamental issue with raising taxes or using taxpayer money to help fund a successful, private venture that really doesn't contribute to the well-being of the area. There is just too much waste and too many needs to do that, IMHO. THat's what's intriguing about this idea floated by the Alliance

Agreed on the 501c3 status. Not only would it bring in a ton of money, but I think it could be so unique and innovative that it might be the model for sports franchises, going forward, or at least the smaller market ones. Most people don't have the appetite to watch their taxes increase only to see tax money being used to help fund an NFL franchise. Especially when we have failing schools, potholes and bad bridges, and the need for more law enforcement. This hybrid model reduces public funding and simultaneously engages the fan base more. They have more skin in the game. I really like this idea. Absolutely agree. That's going to be a challenge.

You're really missing the point, unfortunately. But I would expect a few knee-jerk reactions similar to this. The other options are as follows: 1) The state and county provides more incentives to keep a team in Buffalo or build a new stadium (current model). 2) Hope and pray a prospective new owner(s) decided to pony up all the money and also decide to keep the team in Buffalo, despite all the likely benefits to move the team. With the current model, you are giving money without having any real say in the matter. With the other option, you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I respectfully disagree. When taxpayer money is spent on large projects, almost invariably the choices are influenced by political alliances, campaign donations, or lobbying of some sort. That is one of the least transparent (or efficient) activities we have in this country. To make it worse, everyone pays taxes so in effect everyone is impacted by decisions that are influenced by these forces. Conversely, in this proposal, those who want to support keeping the team in buffalo can. So the first benefit is that you are aligning the interests of the contributors and the benefactors. Second, the fund is set up by selling 'equity' to the 'shareholders'. The investors know that the only way they get their money back is if the team is sold AND moved. This would be stipulated in all the documentation. The fund itself would give loans to the team, which would be repaid under the terms. I honestly can't see anyway that people could get 'fleeced'. It's as simple and straightforward as can be. It's really an ingenious idea and I think the biggest obstacle is fundraising enough to make it a real asset to a potential ownership group. Think about it like this: It's a similar structure to a mutual fund. Shares are purchased for $$ which a portfolio management team then invests on behalf of the shareholders. The difference here is the investment on behalf of the shareholders is a loan (bond) to the Bills, the PM team is not making money, and the shareholders are not expecting a return on investment.