birdog1960

it's an article giving perspective. i think that is one of the medias' most important tasks. could it have waited? maybe but it's difficult when canonization seems the next logical step based on most reports.

wow. no wonder lawyers are so well paid. it takes real talent to come up with concepts that obtuse. from what you said, i gather it was both the bills and the county's intent to hinder if not outright prevent the bills from moving for 7 years and if so, then bravo ralph!. but if that truly was the bills intent, wouldn't it be more straightforward to use language in a will stating that sale of the team would be contingent on the purchaser agreeing to not moving the team for 7 years? or might there be available a more concrete and straightforward method to secure the team in wny via the lease? in short, isn't there some simpler legal remedy to ensure this intent? as a non lawyer, it seems a bit convoluted. i have a liquidated damages clause in my employment contract for both myself and my employer as i suspect others here do. my lawyer explained it to me as the cost either side pays for breaking the contract. is that not in essence what's being stated here?

wouldn't need to say "no matter what". all need said is " i sold the team to someone with intention to keep the team in buffalo". or even "i've discussed selling the team to some with intention...".

what would possibly be the point of keeping that secret especially if he had concern for his legacy? the only thing i can come up with would be to stop fans from prematurely abandoning ship. seems unlikely.

an argument could then be made that he could have done a deal to keep the team in buffalo before his demise.

would you consider that good or bad? i'd definitely vote bad...

i'm afraid there's too much faith in the NFL owners doing the "right thing". they're going to do whatever they believe is best for business. and they could still come to the wrong conclusion e.g. the decision to sweep the head injury issue under the rug for years. if the value of the team in buffalo is x and it's x+y somewhere else, as long as y is greater than the incremental cost of moving the franchise, it makes sense for the new owner to move. i think there's a better than even chance that's true. the financial cost to the nfl from bad will garnered over the moving van scenario has probably already been estimated by accountants in the NFL. that calculation (correct or incorrect) will likely decide whether the bills stay or move. i also agree that whether or not wilson left conditions in place assuring the bills remain in buffalo will greatly effect his legacy. how much that legacy mattered to him will soon become evident.

This is all very true. the haves and have nots of teams and fans are a real threat to the league. but fans can watch at home and not hurt the teams bottom line all that much even with 1/2 empty stadiums as long as the tv money is there. perennial have -not teams threaten that pot of gold much more than the have- not fans. how many buffalo- cleveland prime time games are possible before the brand is irrevocably broken? the league needs to be much more proactive in legislating parity among teams.

i believe this is why these byrd threads get thousands of hits. this type of bills move has plenty of precedent. but we're all hoping for change. it didn't happen with this fa and it doesn't bode well for the future even under the "new" regime at obd. and what are the odds that the next legitimate drafted star, qb or not, would rather play somewhere other than buffalo at the end of his contract? if that's a deal breaker for the bills to negotiate then there's not even a glimmer of light at the end of the very long tunnel.

there's no strawman. your reasoning distilled: the bills goal is to win more games. byrd doesn't help the bills win more games (which is far from a conceded premise). therefore, re signing him doesn't make sense. am i missing something? can this be extrapolated to every other player in every other position?

this is quite a threshold and i believe would not be considered orthodox in most franchises: the player must guarantee more wins or he can be replaced by a lesser player at his position. is that in the part of the gm handbook that i missed? isn't "building a winner" the term often used to describe the grand scheme? teams win games. better teams win more games. better players make up better teams. byrd is a better player. n.o. is a better team. the bills aren't.

here's the facts that argue against the bills' offer being equivalent or superior to the saints: the offer details have not been made public by the bills. if they were superior or equivalent, it would be to the bills benefit to confirm that so they could prove to fans that they really did everything reasonable to keep the guy and he just wanted to leave. next, they had the opportunity to match the best market offer and keep him via tag but they chose not to. lastly, gilmore has implied that the bills offer was not as good as reported and so have reporters. i haven't seen the bills publicly refute any of those statements.what evidence do we have that the bills offer was equivalent or better than n.o.? none, save a vague 30 mil claim that was explicitly specified in the article as not guaranteed, yet we have folks here insisting it must be so....just because.

yes, but Tim Graham is obviously biased and the bills brass are always forthright, transparent and truthful...

why are so many here worried about wilson's money? there are plenty of minions already doing that. as fans why should we care if they met their cash to cap goals?

i'm thinking you're attitude will be birth control enough. natural selection at work.

sounds like the biggest thing you have to lose is your credit. look at the worst case and protect it from that angle. call your credit card co's and your bank. call law enforcement (ask your bank for advice on which agency to call- they're at risk too). get the stuff the irs recommended. good luck!

this and the glee over spike's one year signing seem to exhibit a double standard. when other teams sign expensive free agents to a short term fa deal, the rationilization made here is that those teams are close to a super bowl and the bills aren't. when we sign some middling fa to a 1 year deal or a short term gaurantee it's somehow a brilliant move. so why wouldn't the bills signing an older fa marquee player in a position of need to a short term contract make sense? my answer is that it would if cost were not an obstacle.

what does graham or sullivan or any reporter have to gain by reporting incorrect info? what do the bills have to gain by releasing incorrect or incomplete info? who is more likely to willfully mislead?

then how does this equate to "doing an excellent job in Free Agency? would netting equal talent be an excellent job? would a net gain of talent be a super excellent job? it's clear that even you don't really believe this.

it's stunning how some teams are consistently "lucky" and others consistently "unlucky". doesn't seem random.

the raiders, browns and bills are the 3 worst nfl teams in the last 2 decades. who cares which is #30,31 or 32?

unfortunately, some of those failures are actually bad writing bit i agree, the good stuff should be acknowledged. i also think it's too bad more of the good shows aren't brighter. the good writers seem to dwell on the dark topics. i can't remember a recent really well written comedy tv episode much less series. we need some more material in that genre like "seinfeld", "taxi" or "mash".

pixie dust and good wishes....about all there is for bills fo apologists to hold onto now

until yesterday i wasn't aware of the acronym "jag". but that fits chandler far too well to get excited about this signing.

the ap did not say guaranteed. warwow specified this on a post on this board.