ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

1. A third possibility is that you don't understand what the publicly available lease actually says. Poloncarz stated in an interview earlier this year that he is writing a book about the lease negotiations. I don't know when it will be published, but it would be interesting to compare (1) what Poloncarz writes about the lease negotiations, with (2) your speculation. According to Poloncarz, the Bills "weren't too thrilled about" the $400 million liquidated damages provision when the government initially proposed it, but the government "fought" to keep it in the lease: http://www.wgrz.com/media/cinematic/video/9739659/poloncarz-writing-book-on-stadium-lease/ 2. The most likely reason for the trust wanting a fast sale is that the sale proceeds are needed to timely pay the required estate taxes. If the Bills made up a high percentage of Wilson's total net worth then liquidating only his other assets might not generate enough cash to pay them. 3. Although the lease allowed the trust to sell the team to any new owner who already planned to move the team AFTER the year seven buyout, that seven year wait is still a provision that made buying the team far less desirable to anyone planning to move the team. Potential buyers may have been blind-sided by any sale restrictions contained in Ralph's confidential trust agreement (which to this day has never been made public as far as I know), but it's far-fetched to think that billionaires interested in buying the team, and NFL executives responsible for approving the now publicly available lease, didn't bother to read and understand the lease. There are reasons to be grateful to Ralph for agreeing to the terms of a lease that prohibited a move for seven years when his life expectancy was quite a bit less than that, and there may very well be even better reasons to also be grateful to Ralph for any sale restrictions that may exist in his confidential trust documents, but the other owners aren't as dumb as you seem to think. But that's a less heart-warming story. Let's squish the h*ll out of the Phish this Sunday anyway. Go Bills!

Because those sources confirm that Ralph's will is governed by Michigan law, this seems like an appropriate time and place to post a link to my brother Darryl's guide to getting a copy of Ralph's trust under Michigan law: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/167450-my-brother-darryls-guide-to-getting-a-copy-of-ralphs-trust/page__hl__%2Bbrother+%2Bdarryl%26%2339%3Bs+%2Bguide Re-posted here in hopes that any reporter, blogger or other interested party might find it helpful when trying to uncover the otherwise private terms of Ralph's trust agreement. Unlikely to be of any use, but since I don't know Ralph's family dynamics, it's possible some disgruntled beneficiary of the trust might be cooperative. Under certain conditions, Michigan law requires the trustees to provide information about the trust to any beneficiary who requests it, even if the trust agreement instructs the trustees to keep it confidential.

And here I was worried about Skynet . . .

And from that set of facts, you conclude that the NFL hates relocation? Who do you think approved the moves out of Baltimore, Cleveland and Houston? NFL owners afraid of losing a billion dollar antitrust suit, that's who: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-11-30/news/1995334142_1_antitrust-laws-antitrust-case-tagliabue I don't put much faith in pronouncements in the press by other owners that they would like to see the Bills remain in Buffalo. Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that they will risk $ by actually voting to block a move. I have not thoroughly researched the matter, but to the best of my knowledge the legislation Tagliabue wanted was never passed, so potential antitrust liability from blocking a relocation is still a risk for the other owners. Obviously, the Wilson Trust could decide that it won't sell to any potential owner who is likely to move the team (if trust language relaxes the duty trustees otherwise have to maximize the sales price for the benefit of ALL beneficiaries - - including any charities). But if any owner of any NFL team ever wants to relocate, history says that the other NFL owners won't block the move if threatened with an antitrust suit. Don't take my word for it - - just believe Tagliabue's sworn testimony (unless some legislation passed since then that I'm not aware of). I think I read somewhere that the NFL created some relocation guidelines with an eye to reducing antitrust exposure if it ever grew the balls to block a future team move. But since the Al Davis suit over the Raiders relocation, have the owners actually blocked ANY proposed team relocation? Not to my knowledge - - though I could have missed something.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/18/rogers-joins-bon-jovi-and-tanenbaum-in-equal-stakes-bid-to-buy-bills http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-sources-bon-jovi-part-group-eyeing-bills

Conventional wisdom is often a whole lot more conventional than it is wise. If you have a defense that can stop the other team cold, then your offense should take more risks, not less. Because succeeding on 4th down even occasionally will get you some points, and failing on 4th down is less likely to result in points for your opponent than if your defense was only average. Let me guess, in baseball you believe the myth that left-handed hitters handle low inside pitches better than right-handers, even though the human body is symmetrical.

Wonder if the potential new "controlling owner" of the Toronto group will be Larry Tanenbaum or Ed Rogers? If Ed Rogers has the ability to put up whatever funds the Rogers Family Trust has available the group would have a higher potential max bid, but even if Tanenbaum becomes the lead guy the Toronto group could probably go higher than the Bon Jovi-led triad. Tanenbaum is likely to own put options that would allow him to sell his 25% stake in MLSE to the other two 37.5% owners if he wants. That's just a guess, but billionaires like control, so I would expect him to have negotiated such an "out" when Rogers Communications and Bell bought their combined 75% stake from the former majority owner of MLSE. I don't know if Tanenbaum would want to divest his interest in MLSE if required to make a bid that might allow him to become the controlling owner of the Bills, but my guess is that he has put options that would allow him to cash out his MLSE stake if he wants. Use that cash as 30% of the total bid and the Toronto duo could bid pretty high even with Tanenbaum as the lead dog. Just my 2 lira - - could be wrong.

Punt

Far less effective. The only way you could ever complete a forward pass would be to throw a pass that never got more than about 8-9 feet off the ground. If you tried to put even a little loft on it, it would never come down. Your receivers might be able to jump up to catch it, but they would never come down either. So if they did jump and catch it they would never come down, but the play clock would keep running until the end of whatever quarter you were in, and the game could never actually end. All the defense would be required to do to break UP a pass would be to stand anywhere on the straight line between the QB and the receiver (unless there was a cross-wind). Any thrown ball with any chance of being caught by a receiver would be so low that a defender on that line could simply reach out and knock it UP (where it would also never come down, and therefore also run the clock to the end of the quarter). Any other hypotheticals?

Hey Dibs, I know you follow the salary cap rules pretty closely, and I haven't looked at them in a while. Is it clear that dead cap money (i.e., money actually spent by the team in an earlier year but that does not count against the salary cap until this year) qualifies as money to meet the cap floor requirement imposed by the new CBA? Stated differently, is there any CBA requirement that the [rolling 4 year average ?] floor must be exceeded with cash actually spent during the 4 year period, as opposed to including dead cap money that may actually have been spent before the 4 year period started? By choosing to take portions of the Fitz cap hit in two different years rather than all at once, does the front office get to count more of the "hit" in a year where the CBA requires the team to spend above a floor (albeit over a 4 year period)? Could that explain why Fitz's cap hit wasn't taken all at once? I don't remember which year the first rolling 4 year "floor" period starts. Thanks.

From the "Goodwins Tweet" thread: "Somewhere this off-season I turned from the optimist into a cyclical old fan. IDK wtf happened to me."

History may not repeat itself - - but it rhymes: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/121390-it-aint-rocket-surgery/

Forget it - - he's rolling.

Maybe Pegula will move the team to Lake Wobegon where Marrone will hand out participation trophies so that all the players can ignore the scoreboard and feel like they are above average.

When "Bless you" is outlawed, only outlaws will bless you!

How did she lose a foot?

I'd be pretty careful about doing business with Mr. Dacoury. I found evidence that the account has indeed been around for at least a few years, but it used to have 7.5 million Euros in it. If it now has only 6.500.000 Million dollars, somebody has already taken a withdrawal of some of the money. Be careful! http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=91544 It would be interesting to send the guy the above link and ask for an explanation of what happened to the rest of the money, but I'm not gonna provide my e-mail address. Any risk-takers in the cause of entertainment?

If it was Ted Nugent we could look for deers in Jim Kelly's yard, but since it's Bon Jovi, maybe we should check whether he's "come out of the stable" and will play at Bronypolooza: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/bros-and-my-little-pony/375793/2/

It's gotta be tough to find true love, or even reasonably accurate love, in America when you're named after a Muslim country.

Kelly The Dog: And if you want to see that language in the actual lease for yourself, you can find it at Article 7.1, page 35, here: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf The defined terms that use initial caps are listed in alphabetical order starting on page 4 of the lease, so the ones starting with the word "Termination" are at pages 19-20. This is pretty dry stuff, but there is a more detailed response with my brother Darryl's thoughts at reply # 122 in the following thread if you're actually interested: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/167263-report-agreement-forbids-sale-to-an-owner-who-would-relocate/page__st__120#entry3117737

The current lease is a publicly available document and does not prevent the team from being moved to Toronto in 2020. The trust document is not a public document. Until reputable journalists reported leaks concerning the trust's preference for bidders who will keep the Bills in Buffalo after 2019, EVERYONE was clueless about the reality. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to say that it was clear all along that only bidders who would commit to keeping the team in Buffalo after 2019 had a chance. There was always speculation to that effect, but nobody really knew. Even today, the terms of the trust are not publicly available. We are all hoping that the un-named sources leaking information to sports journalists know what they are talking about. There have been enough similar reports by different reporters that I tend to believe what has been published in the media about the trust's preference for an owner who will give some type of assurance (even if it isn't a legally binding commitment) to keep the team in Buffalo after 2019.

People did a lot of things to Lovelace - - I suppose some of it could be called "posting."

All your base are belong to us!

Some interesting stuff (at least to me) in this article about one of the Bills' lawyers - - here's a few excerpts: http://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-upstate/article/La-Dolce-Vita/5bbfb2a9-bb0e-478a-a492-f49e7e6f01e4.html