ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Only thing my brother Darryl can think of, and this is just the wild-ass guess of a moron, is that because the article says Ralph was 86 at the time of the interview, maybe the trust was already established when Ralph sought the legal advice. Darryl says he ain't clear about all the ins and outs of when trusts are revocable (i.e., they can be changed), and when they are irrevocable (if I gotta put an i.e. explanation here, you may have gone to remediation school with Darryl). Ralph unceremoniously gave to a lot of charities during his lifetime - - it certainly seems plausible that he may have made at least one charity a beneficiary of some portion of the value of the assets in the trust. If that's what happened, Darryl thinks maybe the trustees, reportedly including Mary Wilson and Jeffrey Littman, have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the sales price for the benefit of all of the beneficiaries - - not just the ones who happen to be Ralph's relatives. Another poster (BringBackFergy?) suggested that if all of the beneficiaries agreed in advance to honor Ralph's legacy by accepting a non-maximum bid from a Buffalo ownership group, it wouldn't matter if the terms of the trust said that the sale should be made to the highest bidder (or to the highest bidder who could obtain approval from 75% of the other NFL owners). Assuming that's true, Darryl thinks that doesn't address the possibility that medical research institutions or other charities are included among the beneficiaries of the trust. Even if Mary Wilson wanted to favor a local ownership group despite receiving a higher bid from somebody else, would you expect the CEO of a medical research institution (especially if it happened to be an out-of-state medical research institution) to agree to a sale that generated less $$ for medical research? How many sick people should that CEO throw on the dust bin so that the Bills can stay in Buffalo? Darryl don't watch much hockey, but as far as he knows, the hockey team sale didn't involve trustees, so it twern't an amalgamous situation. This post certainly raises more questions than it answers, but hey, it's just reporting the musings of a moron who ain't all that knowledgeable about what's happenin' beyond the borders of the holler. Darryl's been known to be wrong a time or two. Roll Tide! And Go Bills!!

FWIW, from an article based on an interview Ralph gave in 2005: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/05/20050516/Other-News/In-Profile-Bills-Owner-Ralph-Wilson.aspx?hl=SFX&sc=0 Article doesn't specify WHY that would be illegal, and maybe he got different legal advice or changed his mind later. People in their 80's or 90's change their minds about stuff all the time, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619087/Their-work-valued-not-bashed-Teachers-unions-pressure-Discovery-Channel-cancel-Bad-Teachers-just-one-episode.html

I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo, but as usual everybody reads into the article what they want to believe. The article mainly says that the sale might take place quicker than many previously anticipated, so the state wants to be ready to push for that new owner to stay in WNY. The article specifically states that Duffy said that he doesn't know who the new owner may be or what that new owner's goals may be: If the fix is in for the new owner to be a local person that will definitely keep the Bills in WNY, why would the state be in a rush to prepare a report about possible new WNY stadium options in 90 days or so (immediately after any early sale), rather than in 6 months or so when the "New Stadium Working Group" committee has prepared its own report? While it can't hurt to have potential bidders tour possible sites for a new WNY stadium, a quick new owner decision doesn't necessarily mean it will be someone local - - it could still go either way. Just my opinion - - flame it if you want.

Where's Weird Al when you need him?

Turns out, you can find stuff on the Interweb tubes with google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption

I think maybe both teams.

They should have just gone "old school" and put a cow on the roof.

Interesting article - - thanks.

Follow the money.

Wonder if you could rig something up to jam any nearby radar gun without giving yourself brain cancer?

Here's some background about the retained lawyer (article is about 3 years old): http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/03/21/Forty-Under-40/Irwin-Raij.aspx

If you think I've only recently joined the "whack job" club you haven't been paying attention.

OK, let me say right up front that both my Darryl brothers think this is a long shot. One reason why wealthy people like Ralph Wilson use trusts is to keep their financial affairs private. The Darryls and I have seen media reports that Mary Wilson and Jeffrey Littman are both trustees of the trust that now owns the Bills - - we don't know if that's true, but we also have no reason to doubt it. If Mary, Jeffrey and any other trustees refuse to answer questions about the details of the trust, there's probably not much that reporters can do to uncover and report on those details. This helps makes people like John Wawrow ornery when dealing with the collection of whack jobs who post on TBD. But just maybe there's a back door to get the same info. Ralph had other business interests besides the Bills, and he owned other assets. Is it likely that Ralph created a single trust of broad scope that contained not only his football team, but at least some of his other valuable assets as well? Just speculating now, but it seems possible - - it might be more efficient to do it that way than to have separate trusts for many different assets. So what's the point? Here's the point: Ralph owned a number of very valuable racehorses during his lifetime. Sometimes racehorses break down and your investment in them goes "poof," so people insure them. One particular colt that Ralph bought in about 2001 later got injured and had to be euthanized, and a dispute arose about whether the insurance company had to pay up on an $875,000 policy. The dispute wound up in a Kentucky court. The court decided in favor of the insurance company, so Ralph's $875,000 went "poof." But along the way, the court's published opinion revealed that the horse was actually owned not by Ralph in his individual capacity, but by Ralph as Trustee of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Revocable Trust. It also mentioned that Jeffrey Littman managed the insurance for Ralph's stable of race horses. So there could be some rational basis for transferring ownership of the colt pre-injury to the same trust in which Littman and Mary Wilson would eventually become trustees upon Ralph's death (because Littman was immersed in Ralph's horse racing endeavors as well as Ralph's NFL business). It's a long shot, but there could have been discovery taken in that court case requiring Ralph to provide a copy of that trust's provisions to the insurance company and its lawyers. 1. Is it the same trust that now owns the Bills? - - can't say. 2. Even if it's the same trust, did the insurance company and its lawyers ever get a copy of it during the case? - - can't say. 3. Even if it's the same trust and the insurance company/lawyers got a copy, was a protective order entered by the court to make sure it stayed confidential? - - can't say. 4. Is a copy buried in a file cabinet somewhere in Kentucky or in London (where the insurance company was based)? - - can't say. I can't research it any further on-line, and trusts really aren't the Darryls' thing anyway. If anybody out there's interested, somebody's gotta pick up a phone and make some calls, and that ain't me or the Darryls. Like I said, it's a long shot. But so were Pat Williams and Jabari Greer. http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/insure/hiscox.htm Roll Tide!

Hey GPC, For some earlier discussion of the stadium lease provisions with my brother Darryl's thoughts, see reply #67 posted 4/13/14 here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/166973-buyout-clause-in-lease-only-to-move-to-new-stadium-not-for-relocation/page__st__60 Darryl says that just like the Non-Relocation Agreement, the full text of the current Stadium Lease is available at an Erie County website (technically this is an unsigned draft of the Stadium Lease, but Darryl can think of no reason why the County would publish an inaccurate version of the document that was eventually signed): http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf Because a lot of people won't bother to click on the link, here's the actual text of Article 7.1 (the part of the Stadium Lease that gives the Bills the option to terminate the lease after 7 years): The "Termination Notice Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as February 28, 2020. The "Termination Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as July 30, 2020. The "Termination Fee" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as $28,363,500. The only conditions Darryl found in the Stadium Lease to the Bills' option to terminate in year 7 are (1) giving written notice of intent to terminate to the County and to the ECSC by noon on 2/28/20, and (2) paying the roughly $28M termination fee to the ECSC before 7/30/20. Darryl said he has not read every word of the roughly 82 page Stadium Lease, but he has read, among others, all of the section 7 termination provisions and he has reviewed the Table of Contents at the front of the Stadium Lease. There aren't any other conditions on the Bills' exercise of their option to terminate the Stadium Lease in the places you would normally expect to find them if they existed, although you would need to read every word of the Stadium Lease to be entirely certain that no other conditions existed. There does not seem to be anything in the Stadium Lease that restricts use of the year 7 termination option to a situation where the Bills are moving to a new WNY stadium. As far as Darryl can tell, there are no restrictions whatsoever on where the Bills can play games after year 7 if the Bills elect to exercise their contractual right to terminate the lease after 7 years by giving timely written notice and timely paying the roughly $28M fee.

Most people on TBD will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the Non-Relocation Agreement and stadium lease actually say. If anybody actually cares what the Non-Relocation Agreement actually says, here's my brother Darryl's analysis: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf The relevant language is in Section 3(b) -- I deleted extraneous language for clarity (full text is in the link): That's still a lot of verbiage, even with extraneous language deleted, but here's the key part - - the phrase "except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph" clearly shows that there are some circumstances in which "clause (iv)" allows the Bills to attempt to move the Team. So what are those circumstances? Per "clause (iv)," it's when the "relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term." Note that the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" is capitalized. That's not a random grammatical error. Initial caps were used because the exact phrase "Non-Relocation Term" has a precise meaning defined in an earlier part of the Non-Relocation Agreement. Here's how paragraph 1® defines the phrase "Non-Relocation Term:" So the "Non-Relocation Term" doesn't end until the "Stadium Lease Expiration Date." That sounds good, right? The new stadium lease runs for 10 years and doesn't expire until 2023. But there's a problem - - the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" is also capitalized, and if you go back to the definitions section, you find that paragraph 1(y) defines the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" as follows: So if you plug the definition of the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" found in paragraph 1(y) into the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" found in paragraph 1®, the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" becomes: See the problem? The Non-Relocation Term doesn't necessarily end on July, 31, 2023 - - it could also end on "such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire." The language used in the Non-Relocation Agreement makes the "Non-Relocation Term" end whenever the stadium lease ends. If the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the stadium lease and the "Non-Relocation Term" both end on July 31, 2020. That's important, because paragraph 3(b)(iv)(y) of the Non-Relocation Agreement allows the team to discuss relocation at any time so long as the relocation would actually take place after the "Non-Relocation Term" ends. I realize that the above analysis involves long and tedious reading of a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but this type of analysis of specifically defined terms is what lawyers and judges will do when they are trying to figure out exactly what conduct is prohibited by the Non-Relocation Agreement. Bottom line is that any move that would actually happen after the stadium lease ends (whether it ends by expiration of the full 10 year term or ends by the team exercising it's option to terminate the lease after 7 years), can be discussed by the Bills today. I realize this conclusion contradicts some media reports, as well as the John Kryk blog that the OP linked to. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, portions of the media reports and portions of John Kryk's blog piece are wrong. It's true that the Non-Relocation Agreement prevents the team from being sold to anyone who, to the Bills knowledge, intends to actually move the team while the stadium lease is in force. But the Non-Relocation Agreement does not prevent anyone from moving the team anywhere after the lease either (1) expires in 2023, or (2) is terminated by the Bills in 2020 (if whoever owns the team then follows the termination procedure spelled out in the stadium lease). So the team is pretty well locked in to playing games at the Ralph for 6 more years, not 9.

I just hope you never have to change your screen name to nojrm or dlanodrm!

FWIW, from a 2005 article reporting on an interview with Ralph: http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/05/20050516/Other-News/In-Profile-Bills-Owner-Ralph-Wilson.aspx

As long as you don't marry her, you should be good to go.

Darryl says that both Bruuuuuuuuce and Maybin were pass rushers, so they were both on the field in the nickel and dime packages. I mean, not at the exact same time, more like 20 years apart . . . but still . . .

My older brother Darryl says 1/175 = 0.0057. Even Maybin had more sacks than that.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status-2014-domestic-drone-legislation-states Discussion of types of legislation and a chart with state-by-state breakdown at the above link.

To answer the OP's question: colonize Mars.

Wonder if you're often actually safer at airports with challenging conditions because the pilots generally know in advance that they need to be on top of their game - - kind of like how the most dangerous highways are often the long straight ones that put you to sleep and can literally bore you to death.

Shouldn't the thread title be changed to "Truckma?"