ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I've lurked here on and off for quite a while, but I'm a newbie as a poster. I was dubious about this notion of professional fact checkers, so I decided to research the issue a little bit. As I dug deeper, I was surprised at what I found. I may be new around here, but I think everyone who attacked crayonz underestimates the role of people who work as professional fact checkers. They actually get paid to painstakingly verify things, because some situations (like the relationship between Malone and Bell) aren't what they seem to be. If you don't believe me, check out this link: http://mediacareers.about.com/od/mediajobp...FactChecker.htm It states, right there in black and white in the third sentence of the article - - - "Fact checking is one of those oft discussed jobs within the industry that many people outside of the media world don’t know too much about." You only get inducted into the Hall of Fame once, so although Karl Malone was a veteran basketball player, he was a newbie at making an induction speech. Whether you're a newbie at making a HOF speech like Karl Malone, or a newbie at posting like me, I think we can all agree that it's important to have the facts straight before you start talking. So I'm glad that the HOF employs professional fact checkers. Just my 2 cents.

A few questions: 1. Aren't the Green Bay Packers owned by a corporation, shares of which are owned by a lot of individuals in the greater Green Bay community? I didn't research that today, but I think I've seen that reported by the news media in the past. 2. Couldn't a requirement for one owner to have at least a 30% ownership stake in a team be satisfied if an individual owned all, or even a controllong 51%, of the shares of a corporation that actually owned the team? 3. Do you have a link to any reputable source to support the "no corporate ownership of NFL teams" idea? Seems like there's a lot of different fan opinions about how ownership is or must be structured, and it would be nice to get the facts, whatever they may be. Thanks in advance.

Without disclosing anything that was shared with you in confidence, can you tell us when the "person who helped Ralph create the structure" says that the structure was actually created? Thanks.

I agree about the "scatback," but not the switch to the 3-4. If I remember the timing correctly, we signed both Andra Davis and Dwan Edwards (I'm sure about Edwards) in free agency BEFORE the draft. From what I read, both are expected to contribute immediately, largely because of their past experience in playing the 3-4. Even if nobody breathed a word about the 3-4 in public, I don't think it would have been a surprise to any other team on draft day that our defense was switching to a 3-4 after those free agent signings. And public commitment to the 3-4 might have helped persuade those guys to sign. "Scatback" is different. There wasn't any free agent signing to tip our hand on that specific draft target. BUT WAIT! The conventional wisdom is that all teams blow disinformation smoke about what position they will draft first, so our genius FO staff realized that by telling everyone that they just might draft a scatback, no one would believe them, and the scatback would still be there on draft day. Brilliant! [sarcasm detected] 'Course, whether we should have drafted the scatback first is a whole 'nother issue. But I'm willing to hold off judgment on that for a while. Maybe we WANTED somebody to trade up and take Spiller ahead of us, in hopes that the player who dropped as a result would be a higher rated OT? As it turned out, we didn't miss Okung by much.

Here's a video clip of the CNBC interview. The NFL team comments are about 4 minutes into the 5 minute clip. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1564983737&play=1

Sal Galatioto is a "sports investment banker" who was a guest today on the "Strategy Session" show on financial news network CNBC. While discussing the sale of sports franchises generally, he said: "We are involved in the sale of limited partnership interests [in sports teams] all the time. ... We're launching the sale of a 30% interest in an NFL team in September." Sal would not identify the team involved, but said the sale was being made to deal with "estate planning and other issues." He also made other comments about how the sale of limited partnership interests in sports teams are typically done quietly and "person-to-person." Seems to me like there's no particular reason to think the unidentified NFL team is the Bills, because there are probably a lot of teams with owners who need to deal with estate planning issues. I don't follow ownership details of other teams, though. For background on Sal Galatioto, see this 6/3/10 Business Week article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...ets+%2B+finance Here's the website for his firm: http://www.gspcap.com/GSPWeb/Home.jsp?1 Anybody know enough about the ownership situtation of other teams to speculate about which NFL team will be trying to sell a 30% limited partnership interest in September?

I can't tell from your post why you can't get DirecTV at your apartment. If your lease gives you the exclusive right to use a patio or balcony that is not considered a part of the "common area," then in most circumstances your landlord or apartment manager cannot legally prohibit you from installing a satellite dish on that patio or balcony, no matter what your lease says. There's a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rule that makes this clear. Here's a link to the applicable FCC rule: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Note that there are some fairly limited circumstances where the landlord can regulate some aspects of how your dish is installed. If you don't have a clear view from within your patio or balcony to the part of the sky from which the satellite beams down the TV signal, or if you just find the cost of the football package too expensive, you would still have a problem. I suppose you would still have to decide if you want to piss off your apartment manager or landlord by insisting on doing something they would like to prohibit (and risk retribution for petty lease offenses they might otherwise overlook), but in most circumstances they cannot legally prevent you from having a satellite dish on your own patio or balcony, in Texas or anywhere else, no matter what your lease says. Good luck!