ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

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

After you've been the starting QB in multiple Super Bowls, or walked on the moon, it's hard to avoid feeling that the rest of your life is anti-climatic. Maybe he should take up the global warming cause instead.

The ownership transfer procedure is spelled out in detail in the NFL Constitution & Bylaws. The most recent version I've been able to find is from 2006, but I have no reason to think it's been changed (although it's possible): [Note to mods - - the document is not copyrighted, so lengthy excerpts aren't a problem for TBD] http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

I suspect we probably agree about more issues than those on which we disagree. If you had originally said something along the lines of - - "None of the known round 2 bidders have any warts big enough for the NFL owners to veto them, and Pegula and Golisano have either already been approved or will be rubber stamped by the NFL" - - I would have agreed with you.

When Rush Limbaugh was kicked out of a potential Rams ownership group in 2009, do you think that happened without any involvement by the NFL or owners of the other teams? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4559454

This isn't a personal attack. If you acknowledge that one of the remaining bidders (i.e., the JBJ group) might not be approved by the NFL, how can it be true that the "NFL has no say?" You made my point, which is merely that the NFL really does have a say in the outcome. The fact that Golisano or Pegula or anyone else has already been vetted an approved doesn't change that - - it just means that the NFL already HAD its say as to those bidders.

That may be true - - but the point is that the NFL has a say.

The NFL may ultimately approve the trust's initial choice of a winning bidder. That does not mean that the NFL automatically just rubber stamps the choice. The NFL can either confirm or veto any bidder that the trust chooses. That means that the NFL does have a say. While technically the trust picks a winner and the NFL later confirms or vetoes that choice, I would expect the NFL to let the trust know in advance if any of the round 2 bidders were likely to be vetoed - - simply because it's not clear to me how anyone benefits if a veto is publicized. The trust has a deadline to pay estate taxes, and if reports about the Bills making up the bulk of Ralph's estate are true, it seems likely that they will not have cash immediately on hand to pay those taxes if the team isn't sold. So if Goodell informs the trustees that some round 2 bidder is likely to be vetoed by the NFL, the trust is highly likely to choose a different bidder as the winner, and the public may never know the real role that the NFL played in the process. Saying something 20,000 times doesn't make it true - - it just makes it repetitive.

Here's what worries me - - if I remember correctly, the NFL Commissioner has pretty recently said that the Bills need a new stadium to remain "viable" in WNY. My brother Darryl figures that the other 31 owners would like to see the trend of decreased public financing of new stadiums reversed. Darryl may be slow, but even he can see that non-local ownership groups are likely to have more leverage than Pegula when it comes time to squeeze the state and county for stadium concessions. And that's true even if the other NFL owners ultimately want the Bills to stay in Buffalo, which is the subject of some debate. I suppose the trust could request all bidders to indicate up front that they are willing to sign some sort of long term lease extension (assuming that the trust document clearly authorizes that price-reducing action). But even if it does, I think the NFL would have to approve any actual change or extension of the lease terms. If the reports that the NFL initially resisted approving the current Non-Relocation Agreement are true, the trust may not have the power to require binding long-term commitments (i.e., past 2020) from any of the bidders. Public expressions of willingness to stay - - sure, but legally binding commitments? Maybe not. The other owners probably want a high sale price more than anything else, but for the same bid $$, Darryl would expect them to prefer non-local owners. Then again, Darryl's a moron.

Bandit and Kirby, Thanks for your thoughts, guys, but see below: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/18/rogers-joins-bon-jovi-and-tanenbaum-in-equal-stakes-bid-to-buy-bills I don't know how good Kryk's info is, and I'm still getting caught up on recent developments. I did see, however, that Forbes recently reported that ALL first stage bids were "well under" $1 billion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/08/10/all-offers-for-buffalo-bills-below-1-billion/ Kryk's Toronto Sun piece quoted above assumes that if Bon Jovi is designated as "controlling owner," he is required to hold at least a 30% stake. That is widely reported in the media, but I don't know if it's true, for reasons I stated upthread. For the sake of argument, let's assume it is true. If bids have not yet gone over $1 billion as Forbes reported, I can understand Bon Jovi insisting on being the lead dog, because he thinks he's still in the hunt at this level of bidding. But if Morgan Stanley in round 2 can keep going back to bidders and asking for more, what happens when Pegula's bid gets too high for the Toronto group to match if Toronto is required to have Bon Jovi plunk down 30% of the cash? We don't know if Bon Jovi would give up the lead dog role when faced with the prospect of being a minority owner or no owner at all, because at least according to Forbes, he hasn't been required to make that decision yet. And that's assuming that the person designated as the "controlling owner" must have at least a 30% ownership share, which might simply be an assumption (though admittedly frequently made).

I'm not worthy. OTOH, I doubt whether even anyone on the coaching staff could have pulled all 3 of those names from their head without looking at the roster. BTW, if Edawn has any siblings, I'd sure like to know their names.

Serious questions: The NFL has rules that require (1) each team to designate a "controlling owner," and (2) that if more than one person owns an interest in a team, there must be one person who owns at least a specified minimum percentage (didn't go back to look it up, might be 30%). Is it required (not customary, but absolutely REQUIRED) that the person with the over 30% ownership interest be designated as the "controlling owner?" Is it possible that the "controlling owner" is just a title for the person who is designated to cast votes on the team's behalf at league ownership meetings and the like? I seem to remember reading that Mary Wilson was designated as the "controlling owner" after Ralph passed (and may still have that designation for all I know), even though it seems likely that the team was technically owned by the trust at that time and not by Mary personally. I guess what I am clumsily asking is this - - is it possible that because of the seemingly loosey-goosey rules for conducting the sale, the Toronto group could be reshuffled so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money, and Bon Jovi is simply a minority owner designated as the "controlling owner" so that he can be the messenger boy who casts votes at league meetings and performs any other administrative duties that league rules may require of the person given the "controlling owner" title? If so, we may be underestimating how high the Toronto group could bid in round 2. Not saying this would enable them to win the competition, but it might be a way for them to bid higher than what they could if Bon Jovi was required to own at least 30% of the team (which is what everyone in the media is assuming when they make estimates of how high the Toronto group could potentially bid). Often I google this kind of stuff to try to find answers, but I'm not up to reviewing the NFL Constitution & Bylaws tome today. For that matter, even if the person designated as the "controlling owner" has to be the person with the largest ownership share, what prevents the Toronto group from reshuffling so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money and is designated as the controlling owner? If Mary Wilson can be designated as the "controlling owner" by the trust that owns the team right now, why couldn't Ed Rogers be designated as the "controlling owner" by the Rogers family trust that would hypothetically put up the bulk of the purchase money to be the next majority owner of the team? If Bon Jovi wants to be an owner more than he needs to be the lead dog, I would expect him to be lobbying Ed Rogers to put up more Rogers family trust $$ if he thinks that will be required for the Toronto group as a whole to outbid Pegula. Thoughts?

http://www.hannahandfriends.org http://www.valleybreeze.com/2014-08-06/cumberland-lincoln-area/hannah-and-friends-fundraiser-aug-17-last-resort#.U--ZFFa2OlI http://www.wndu.com/news/headlines/Special-needs-daughter-of-Charlie-Weis-moves-in-at-Hannah-and-Friends-Neighborhood-210786551.html

I can't tell you where I herd it.

Deon Broomfield, Edawn Coughman and Jared Wheeler Edawn?

In some ways, Bon Jovi's participation in the auction reminds me of "Barry," the crazy old guy who bids on abandoned storage lockers in the televised "Storage Wars" auctions. Is Pegula Dave Hester?

The trophy case in the Bills' offices?

If only four of them are different, then we have two sets of identical Williams twins on the roster: http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster.html

Ouch!

There's a lot we (or at least I) don't know about Antarctica: http://ufodigest.com/article/wiki-leaks-alleges-secret-war-ufos-antarctica Not that the rest of the story isn't weird enough, but Guadalajara? And we've apparently been using the wrong terminology for underwater UFOs:

Life's been unusually hectic, so I am less up to speed than usual on recent developments in the sale process. But here's some food for thought (even if nobody eats it): 1. Unless something has recently changed, this is very much a 2 step process. The eventual winning bidder has to make a first round bid high enough to survive the first cut, and then needs to beat out a few other survivors with his final second round bid. 2. If the second round is conducted like the first round, then Morgan Stanley can seek amendments or increases to second round bids before a winner is chosen. But what if second round bids are a 1 shot deal - - seems unlikely because that doesn't maximize sales price for the trust - - but what if? 3. In that scenario, optimal strategy would be to bid just high enough to survive the first round, which would mask your true intention to bid much higher in round 2. If I was a billionaire (or a multi-millionaire leader of a group), I would sure try to make Pegula underestimate how high he might have to go to beat my final bid. 4. I don't know how high Golisano could go, but I wonder if he purposely waited to see what the minimum required bid would be to get to round two. 5. If Morgan Stanley can conduct a true auction among second round bidders by repeatedly asking them for more until only one bidder is left standing, then there isn't much point in low-balling the first round bid. But if round 2 is a 1 shot deal, I put absolutely zero faith in the idea that somebody who barely survived the round 1 cut can't be the high bidder in round 2. Assuming Pegula has the deepest pockets (not stating that as a fact, just assuming), a lot could depend on how he evaluates what the other round 1 survivors are likely to bid. 6. I'm wary of the round 1 survivors who let it be known that they don't think they can bid high enough to win round 2, or seem glum about their prospects. That may just be intended to mask how high they will ultimately go (again, assuming round 2 is a 1 shot bid deal rather than an ongoing auction).

Listen up, Jaio! If you can't even tell if I'm a male or a female panda cub, maybe we need to put somebody with a d*ck in charge of the breeding program.