birdog1960

many of the really financially successful folks i know would never think of mentioning it and few others are aware it. the others let their wealth speak for itself, either by reputation or conspicuous consumption. the folks that actually vulgarly state their wealth verbally or in writing tend to be all hat and no cattle, as they say.

he's making huge deals at the club with orthopods and neurosurgeons who drop an entire days schedule on a moments notice to play golf with him. as to whether he's carrying theirs bags, washing their balls and wiping their putters, we're left to wonder.

you truly are a mean spirited, resentful, angry, shameless person. it's a good thing you no longer have a gardner and housekeeper to bully. karma's a B word...

wtf? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-terrorist_n_4394392.html. maybe that['s why drudge has the big headline on limpbaugh and a small one on the passing of this heroic man.

this....and people wonder why wilson is disliked. i often wonder why he isn't even more.

ummm, no. the perspective is there. the proposed solution is different: field a good, consistent, winning team. the organization is and has been consistently profitable. perhaps relative to some larger franchises, not so much. but that's why it was bargain basement priced in 1960. buffalo has never been and never will be a highly desirable, glamorous city. but it has sustained a generally very bad nfl team quite nicely, thank you very much, for over 50 years. perhaps it no longer can as you suggest. the game in toronto isn't likely to change that. if that's the case, why not show some class, pull out all the stops and do your damndest to produce a winner? having a home game in a "neutral" site isn't in that description.

if this writer has captured a majority sentiment for this within the "gta" (and i suspect he has), then this series should die quickly. i think he's nailed it. it's the latest article linked to tbd or read it here: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/04/buffalo-bills-toronto-series-simply-a-bad-idea. how do you not get that it's not happening through the toronto game?

there are nearly 25 pages in chapter 2, section 1 that deal with challenges in today's world with concentration on economic issues. they're straightforward, transparent and included in the beginning 1/4th of the publication. the subsections dealing with economic challenges are clearly titled and very accessible. there's no cherry picking needed. yes, there are plenty of other subjects deemed worthy of discussion in this document. anyone familiar with such documents would expect this. but to argue that the economic points made are of lesser importance in the eyes of the author is an argument without merit or support. an attempt to confuse the issues by attempting to cite the catechism against this new document doesn't change the meaning of the words that francis put to paper here.

IF he thinks the toronto game puts us at a disadvantage? cmon, now. what would you expect the results of a poll of nfl (or even major college) gm's and head coaches would show if asked if giving away a home game would put their team at a disadvantage? pretty certain it would be 100% thast believed that to be true. to question the answer to that question is in itself insulting to fans. newsflash: the toronto game is disadvantageous. therefore, if winning is the top priority, stop the faux pondering and act.

between the organization blaming the victims (fans) and many of the victims defending the organization, it seems we have a massive example of the stockholm syndrome http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+syndrome. the bills are playing it like a stradavarious.

sounds a bit schizophrenic to me. if "nothing comes before winning" then there is nothing to consider. the series should go away, now. his statements also fly in the face of the belief that ticket sales are irrelevant in today's nfl. he doesn't seem to agree. perhaps if they started winning, there would be more sell outs.

except that it's not just entertainment. it's a colossal business, part of the cultural fabric and involves tax dollars and carve outs in anti trust laws. it affects local and regional economies significantly. and, as well documented here, it's no longer influenced by the everyman fan or taxpayer.

no idea what that means. have you tried playing the beatles albums backward? don't know much about politics at the time the wiz was written but don't think it's a major stretch to imagine the scarecrow as a symbol of agriculture or farm workers, the tin man as heartless industrialists, the cowardly lion as the populous (although i've seen it theorized he was alluding to a contemporary, spineless pol). anyway, it's amusing to think of these timeless, beloved, iconic pieces of pop culture in a way that goes against convention.

it was the same dog and pony show in the 60's through 80's (with a few exceptions) when the population and local economy were healthier. the population isn't the limiting factor. losing and wilson are. if i owned a business that was financially successful beyond my wildest dreams, that was carried for years on the backs of loyal, long suffering customers, willing and unwilling taxpayers, desperate for a decent product after a lifetime of shoddy product, i'd stay, do everything possible to make things right and attempt to ensure that the franchise stayed. i'll bet many here would do the same.

misery loves company. wasn't robert kraft a new owner once?

it's entirely reasonable to feel vindictive towards an organization that's mistreated fans so thoroughly and for so long. if you feel vindicated by not throwing financial support towards them, then, by all means, do it. i've tried not to throw a nickle towards the old miser for years. the neon bills sign over my bar that my wife bought me a few years back is a knock off. the replies to your post are correct in the fact that the fans are really powerless. it's akin to the plebs taking on the roman emporer over what's playing at the colliseum. embarrasing the organization, for example, by an entire home crowd wearing mr burn's masks during a game(i know, it's a strange fantasy), might feel gratifying but would be very unlikely to obtain the desired results of a winning team.

it's that whole right brain, left brain thing. most artistic types including screenplay writers, are right brained. i'm betting you're not. did you see the lastest "superman"? notice any biblical parallels there? i'm guessing some viewers might have missed even that.

actually, she's far from alone in the belief about the link to the red scare. the hermie thing, i think she's on her own. the author of the "screenplay" apparently also was blacklisted.after christmas, maybe we should move on to "the wizard of oz".

maybe a bit far flung http://open.salon.com/blog/colleenclaes/2010/01/07/rudolph_the_red-nosed_commie but within the realm of possibility. hermie? really? nah....

he estimates a $3 million bonus for the game to be in toronto as opposed to at the stadium bearing the owners name. i've seen higher estimates. but it sure seems low to sell out on a possible win (the ref bias theory is especially believable and interesting) and more importantly, on selling out the loyal, long suffering fans. it's really a big goober of spit right in every biils fans eye.

i agree. that's why i'd try to staunch the bleedinig right now, before woods' and alonzo's and manuels' (if he's proven to be worth something by then) contracts come up. but, yes, if i were the gm, i'd be watching for openings with better organizations, as well.

resigning byrd would be a statement of commitment to win. i'd pull out all the stops to get it done. bills fo likely won't even try. chandler should go. no way he's worth that money. moats is likely gone. branch should get paid. lewis should stay as should carpenter, moorman, choice and summers. guess i never realized the league minimum was so low. couldn't see literally risking my neck for that. finally, leonard probably gets resigned since byrd won't be.

so, are you asking if it's worth it to have a team that has not and will not prioritize winning? i say no. if the last 50 years show anything, it's that the strategy works out very badly for the fans and very well for the suits.

you want the players and coaches to do everything possible to win, right? why not the executives? if that game is a win, folks can dream of the playoffs for at least a week into December. to desperate fans, that's worth quite a lot. we really don't ask for too much, we ask for too little.

he's right. send it to wilson. maybe someone can read it to him.