ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Hard to evaluate when all you can go by is media accounts, but my impression is that Chan tends to be a pretty straight forward guy who calls him like he sees 'em. If that's true, then you would expect him to be a little uncomfortable, and unpracticed, at blowing smoke. When I see him quoted in the media recently as saying that it was a "joy" to be able to talk football over dinner with Cam Newton, that just doesn't ring true to me. A "joy?" Really? If you hear Gailey making excessively favorable comments about somebody in a way that sounds different than how he usually talks, that might be a prety good indication that he's blowing smoke - - but just not very good at it. My guess is that we won't take a QB at #3, but will try to trade down a few spots with some team that needs one and is afraid that Cinci takes one at #4. Time will tell.

I've previously posted some of the court documents filed in the Brady v. NFL antitrust suit, but it was piecemeal - - a document here and there as I found them. I just found a more comprehensive site: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00639/119126/ This link shows ALL court documents filed in the case through March 14, 2011 - - so it contains documents filed by the players' lawyers in support of their request to have the lockout enjoined, including sworn declarations by various people. You can click on the blue hyperlinked numbers to see the full text of each document in the list. On the downside, this list currently contains only the court filings made on or before March 14th. so the more recent court filings aren't there. I don't know if this web-site will be periodically updated to add more recently filed court documents, but thought some here might find it interesting anyway. Note that you can use the "Advanced Search" link at the upper right hand corner of the page to run an updated future search for court documents by plugging in the name Brady, selecting a date range, Minnesota district court, and antitrust as the subject matter. If this website periodically adds the newer court filings, that should access them. I've previously posted a piecemeal link to the NFL's legal brief filed on March 21st in opposition to the players' request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. Here's a piecemeal link to what the players' lawyers filed in reply on March 28th: http://www.nfllockout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/3.28.11-filed-reply-memorandum.pdf

Just found a copy of the actual court complaint at: http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/eller_vs_nfl_lawsuit.pdf

You can see a copy of the actual antitrust complaint filed in Minnesota federal court on 3/11/11 by Tom Brady and others against the NFL at this link: https://docs.google.com/a/leventhalpllc.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwVkb6p7OhGiMmY1MzMyZTktN2RiNC00NDA2LWFiOTAtNDhkYzAxOWE3NmU5&hl=en 1. Decided to make this a new topic so that people could easily decide to review it, or just skip past it if they're not interested in reading the court filings. 2. If I can find any other court papers filed by the players in support of their request for a preliminary injunction (seems like there must be some), I'll post them - - haven't found those yet. 3. Note that the players' complaint alleges that the Bills are owned by "Buffalo Bills, Inc.". That's probably the New York State corporation described here: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415652&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

I'd also like to see us use several high picks on defense this year. I'm hoping that the organization's praise for Newton and Gabbert is part of a strategy to allow them to trade down a few spots in the first round. If this draft is as deep in DL talent as I keep reading, then we can get an impact DL even after trading down a few spots, and get a few extra picks in the process. I realize you need somebody willing to trade up to make that strategy work, but things look promising on that front. Most draftniks seem to think that there is a sharp drop-off in QB talent after Newton and Gabbert, and there are multiple teams widely thought to be in need of immediate QB help, including Cinci at #4. Denver took Tebow high last year, so they are unlikely to take a QB this year at #2. So even if Carolina takes a QB #1, either Gabbert or Newton will probably be on the board when the Bills are on the clock at #3. And if the CBA situation remains unresolved on draft day, teams that need QB help won't be assured of getting anyone in free agency. It doesn't get much better than that if you want to trade down from #3. I recently read that Gailey was quoted as saying that it was a "joy" to be able to talk football over dinner with Newton. A "joy?" Really? Does that sound like an authentic Gailey sentiment to you? Sounds phony to me. But it makes sense if they want to trade down. I'd like to see us trade down a few spots and take Cameron Jordan or JJ Watt, and use the rest of whatever early round picks we have on front 7 defenders and a right OT. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Maybe that's why he can get away with this: http://www.levibrownphoto.com/ Or maybe that's a representation of the guy who tugged on superman's cape? Nah, that would be Moats!

It's hard to keep up with all of the info posted on TSW, but to the best of my knowledge the two links below have not been posted here: 1. http://www.antitrusttoday.com/2011/03/22/players-hope-to-score-a-touchdown-in-brady-v-nfl/ Although I haven't been able to find a link to the court papers filed by the plaintiffs in the Brady suit, this antitrust law-oriented blog provides a short description of several things that the players are actually alleging in their suit. 2. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/patriots/OppositionBrieffiled.pdf This second link apparently contains a legal brief filed by the NFL in opposition to the players' currently pending request for a preliminary injunction - - it's from a link embedded in #1 above. My apologies if either of these two links were previously posted. Anybody have a link to any of the actual court papers filed by the players?

1. I agree with you regarding opting out of the CBA not precluding new negotiations. 2. Von Miller is a named plaintiff in the first antitrust suit, so presumably any draft-related antitrust arguments on behalf of as yet undrafted college players could already have been made in the first suit. 3. It is not clear to me how retired NFL players have been injured YET if the NFL is making whatever retiree benefit contributions the old CBA required of them. 4. As I recently posted in another thread, the owners and players have BOTH known since 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust exemption/ union decertification dance when the CBA ended - - see pages 238 - 239 of the 2006 CBA at: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf 5. Not sure, but I think I read that Page is a Minn state court judge, so he will play no formal role in any federal court antitrust case appeals.

I don't think the outcome is as clear as you believe. I'm late to this thread and haven't read much of it, but I thought the question of how the NFL can proceed after union decertification was interesting, so I did a little digging. It's amazing what you can find with Google searches. On the off chance that anybody else cares, here's some info that might be of interest as this situation plays out: 1. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Vaughan-final-2.pdf Don't waste your time trying to read all of the above link, but there is a pretty pertinent analysis of how courts have dealt with the interaction of labor law and antitrust law in past sports disputes starting at the heading that reads "B. Labor Law" (at approximately pages 618 - 623) This analysis appears to have been fairly recently written by a student at Cornell Law School - - so it is not binding authority about anything but does contain some rational analysis about how courts have dealt with somewhat similar issues involving sports leagues in the recent past. 2. http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf The above link appears to contain the full text of the most recent CBA. I skimmed a very small section of it, and stumbled on some interesting provisions at Article LVII (pages 238-239). Among other theings, the NFLPA got the owners to agree, that at least in certain circumstances, the owners waived (in advance) any legal argument that future decertification of the union after expiration of the CBA was a sham. I have no clue if that's an enforceable waiver, or if the CBA ended in a way that triggers the provision, but both sides clearly knew in 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust law exemption/ union decertification dance in the future. BTW, if you are interested in other provisions of the CBA, it's a pdf format document that can be searched for terms of interest. Just type in the word or phrase you want to find in the search box at the very top of the document and hit "Enter" - - you will jump to the first hit on that word or phrase in the CBA. For example, if you type in "sham" and hit "enter", you will jump to page 238 or 239.

Not saying it's gonna happen, but you could make an argument that if the Bills started to play all of their home games in Toronto, the NFL would not even consider that to be a relocation of the franchise. If the Bills play games in any stadium located within 75 miles of the city limits of Buffalo, that stadium is by definition considered to be within the existing franchise's "Home Territory," as that term has historically been defined in the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL. Isn't the existing Toronto stadium less than 75 miles from the closest part of the Buffalo city limits (as the crow flies)?

Thanks, Doc. 1. My recent Google search turned up the 6/17/07 "newsletter" link below that cites an interview of Ralph Wilson by Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News for Wilson's statements that (i) the team will be sold after his death, rather than left to his wife or daughters. and (ii) selling a part interest in the team to a Western New Yorker while Ralph lives is "absolutely out." http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/ 2. The Toronto series plans were announced about 4 months later, in 10/07, per this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2007-10-18-toronto-games_N.htm 3. I cannot find any quotes attributed to Wilson after 6/17/07 about what will happen to the team after his death. Based on the Mark Gaughan interview (assuming the 6/17/07 "newsletter" got the quotes right), I have seen no quotes attributed to Wilson about the team being "sold to the highest bidder." Maybe Ralph said that, but if so, I haven't found it. As far as I can tell from Google searching, Ralph merely said that the team would be sold after his death, and everybody just assumes that the sale would be to the highest bidder in an estate sale, because that's how estate sales work. 4. It seems to me like there's another possibility. The Toronto series deal could contain an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, at least if he dies while the original or any extension of the Toronto series deal is in force. I am not aware of anything that would prohibit Ralph from conditioning the granting of such an option on the buyers' agreement to always play some specified number or percentage of the team's games in Buffalo (assuming Ralph cares about whether the team stays in Buffalo after his death - - maybe he does, maybe he doesn't). Seems to me like the sales price could be determined by some sort of agreed-upon appraisal mechanism if it wasn't specified in advance. 5. Because the Toronto people could always choose not to exercise such an option (I think I read that Rogers died, and there hasn't been great demand for Toronto game tickets from what I've read), other potential buyers could still be trying to line up for any future estate sale - - NFL franchises don't often become available for purchase. 6. I am NOT saying that such a purchase option exists - - I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, Ralph has never been publicly quoted as saying anything that would be inconsistent with the existence of such a purchase option. 7. If anybody here has a link to any article quoting Wilson as saying anything after 10/07 that would be inconsistent with the existence of an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, I'd love to see it.

I keep reading here that Ralph stated that the team would be sold to the highest bidder after his death, but when I do a Google search to try to confirm that, the only news stories I find pre-date the announcement of the existing Toronto deal. As far as I can tell, after the Toronto deal was announced, Ralph hasn't wanted to talk about the issue. Anybody have a link to a story AFTER the existing Totonto deal was announced where Ralph still says the team will be sold to the highest bidder after his death? Thanks in advance.

Don't get me started on lawyers, but if you find NFL antitrust litigation issues fascinating, try chewing on this 1994 court opinion from a case involving NFL antitrust issues and William Sullivan, a former owner of the Patriots: http://openjurist.org/34/f3d/1091/sullivan-ii-v-national-football-league Amidst all the legal mumbo jumbo, there are a couple things that might be of minor interest to Bills fans 1. Brief mention of testimony by Ralph Wilson in paragraph 28 on one minor issue in the case; and 2. A contractual option to buy the Patriots that former owner Sullivan gave to a third party while he owned the team (around paragraph 71) - wonder if Patriots fans knew about that purchase option while Sullivan still owned the team?

I spent a little time trying to search online for any NFL rules on ownership transfers. I could not immediately find the text of any NFL rule or bylaw, but did see articles making reference to the fact that a vote of the owners is required to approve the sale of even minority interests in any team's ownership. While I suppose that it's possible for the other owners to approve the sale of a minority interest in some sort of confidential session and keep it a secret, it just seems to me like the chances of that actually happening without something being leaked to the press are pretty low. I suppose Wilson could grant someone an option to purchase the team after some future triggering event (like Wilson's death) without requiring a league vote right now, but that might be inconsistent with the second hand reports here that Wilson has said that the Bills would be sold after his death. I never saw the text of what Wilson actually said - - only the second hand reports here. Did he say that after his death the team would be "sold to the highest bidder" or simply that it would be "sold." One phrasing precludes anybody already owning an option to buy the team after his death - - the other doesn't. Does anybody have a link to what Ralph Wilson actually said about selling the team after his death? If so, thanks in advance. What if the existing Toronto deal is renewable for say another 5 years at the Canadians' option, but also gives the Canadians an option to buy the team outright after Ralph's death conditioned upon the new owner always playing at least some specified number of Bills' games in Buffalo? Would that be inconsistent with anything Ralph has publicly said?

If you look at the public records of New York State here: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415485&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 it seems likely that Ralph Wilson "owns" the Bills because he is the (a) Chairman of the Board or CEO and (b) either the sole OR majority owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - - a New York State corporation. I say "likely" because although you would expect any successful business man to shield his other personal assets from liability by using a corprate form of team ownership, I have no information one way or the other about whether this particular corporation is being used by Ralph Wilson to own the Bills football team. Given the corporate name, it would seem logical, but that's no guarantee. Ralph could be using this corporation for some Bills-related purpose other than actually owning the team. I don't know for certain, but it also seems logical to me that if anybody out there on the information superhighway could confirm that "Buffalo Bills, Inc." is the name on the checks the team uses to pay expenses controlled by the league (e.g. player salaries?), that would be a pretty strong indication that this really is the corporation that Ralph Wilson uses to "own" the Bills. Any bank tellers out there that could confirm one way or the other what name is on such checks? I follow this board when I have time, but I only see a small fraction of the posts. I can't recall ever seeing any discussion of the fact that Ralph Wilson could already have sold a minority interest in the Bills without making that fact public. Closely held private corporations aren't required to make the same type of public disclosures that widely held public ones must make. I don't have any expertise about New York state law as it applies to privately held corporations, but I am not aware of anything that would prevent Ralph Wilson from (1) selling a minority stake in Buffalo Bills , Inc. (2) telling potential minority stake buyers that he would only sell to them if they agreed to keep their mouths shut while he was alive, (3) avoiding public disclosure of such a sale, and (4) continuing to truthfully represent to the public that he is the owner of the Bills (because he still owns a majority of the company's shares). I am NOT saying this has happened - - I'm just saying that it could have happened without the public being aware of it. I keep reading second hand accounts about how Ralph has said the team will be sold upon his death. Assuming that's true, it would not be inconsistent with a pre-existing sale of a minority interest to a silent investor. Upon Ralph's death, his estate could sell the shares of the corporation Ralph still owned, which could be considered to be selling the team because it would still be a majority stake. Just thought I'd give everybody some new facts to chew on. And by the way, for those who think that the league prevents corporate ownership of teams, I think you're misinformed. The league now prevents ownership of teams by non-profit corporations (other than Green Bay, which got grandfathered in because they were already owned that way before the league passed the rule), but closely held private for-profit corporations are a different animal. Upon previewing this post I'm not sure the link I pasted in works because it's so long, so I cut and pasted the full text of the New York State corporate record below: NYS Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information The information contained in this database is current through February 22, 2011. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: BUFFALO BILLS, INC. Initial DOS Filing Date: NOVEMBER 08, 1974 County: ERIE Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION Current Entity Status: ACTIVE Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity) BUFFALO BILLS, INC. ONE BILLS DRIVE ORCHARD PARK, NEW YORK, 14127 Chairman or Chief Executive Officer RALPH C. WILSON JR 99 KERCHEVAL AVE GROSSE POINTE PARK, MICHIGAN, 48236 Principal Executive Office BUFFALO BILLS, INC. 99 KERCHEVAL AVE GROSSE POINTE PARK, MICHIGAN, 48236 Registered Agent NONE This office does not record information regarding the names and addresses of officers, shareholders or directors of nonprofessional corporations except the chief executive officer, if provided, which would be listed above. Professional corporations must include the name(s) and address(es) of the initial officers, directors, and shareholders in the initial certificate of incorporation, however this information is not recorded and only available by viewing the certificate. *Stock Information# of Shares Type of Stock $ Value per Share 200 Par Value 1 *Stock information is applicable to domestic business corporations. Name HistoryFiling Date Name Type Entity Name NOV 08, 1974 Actual BUFFALO BILLS, INC. A Fictitious name must be used when the Actual name of a foreign entity is unavailable for use in New York State. The entity must use the fictitious name when conducting its activities or business in New York State. NOTE: New York State does not issue organizational identification numbers.

This opens up a world of possibilities. How about: Jessica Simpson's mind and Homer Simpson's physical abilities = Aaron Maybin Jerry Lewis' mind and Jim Thorpe's physical abilites = Mike Williams Any takers?

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!