ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that makes me laugh. In no particular order, here are a few of my all-time favorites - - what are yours? 1. My Third Grader Can Beat Up Your Honor Student; 2. Nuke The Gay Whales For Jesus; 3. I Got A Gun For My Wife (best trade I ever made); 4. Eschew Obfuscation; 5. Don't Tell My Momma I Work In The Oil Patch (she thinks I'm the piano player in a whorehouse)

Just when you think you've seen pretty much everything . . .

If? Whadda ya mean IF? If you've got plane fare to Japan and $51 for admission to the "restaurant," you can live the dream in Tokyo! http://mashable.com/2012/08/27/tokyo-restaurant/ Ya gotta roll the embedded video to get the full flavor of the place.

Chin up! If it's just the champagne and confetti, you're doin' better'n me!

When Chan said he will "probably" root for the Bills, I wonder if he was thinking about whether Ralph will voluntarily pay him for the remaining term of his contract. I vaguely recall that Ralph refused to voluntarily pay Wade Phillips for the remaining term of Wade's contract after firing him. Chan must know that history. Ralph might have told Chan something like "I'll pay you the remaining salary you're owed under your Bills contract IF I believe you're making a good faith effort to find other coaching employment and can't find anything." I have no idea if that actually happened, but it seems plausible - - it would certainly leave me with doubts about whether I would root for my former employer's team.

"It could work!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10KObAQFmlY

Global warming my a$$!

My younger brother Darryl says that if hungry fish could talk, they would probably sound a lot like this thread whenever one of those fancy artificial lures hit the water. My oldest brother Darryl thinks that Ralph will announce that he closed the extension of the Bills In Toronto Series deal so that he could realize the income in 2012 before tax rates go up for the wealthy - - but he just likes to annoy people. My middle brother Darryl got lost on his way home from watching the game - - so I don't know what he thinks yet.

They better have names on their shopping carts, so we can tell them apart from the bums on the field.

He got his wife pregnant again, but she doesn't show yet? 1. A doctor he considers a reliable source told him so; 2. The Bills don't know; and 3. It's on like a mofo.

The bolded statement is wrong - - offspring only get a stepped-up tax basis in the team if they inherit it: http://wills.about.c...atisgifttax.htm In your hypothetical scenario, if Ralph passes after 12/31/12, and his offspring sell the team shortly thereafter, then his offspring would pay capital gains taxes on almost the full 800 million current value of the team (at a rate widely expected to go up from the present 15% to 20% or more). Even if 2013 capital gains tax rates stayed at 15%, I think the Wilson family's total tax burden in your hypothetical would be the 35% gift tax paid by Ralph upon making the gift in 2012, followed by the 15% capital gains tax that the offspring would pay upon the sale. Plus, Ralph would have to come up with 35% of $800 million = $280 million to pay the required gift tax bill. That would take some doing, even for Ralph. Did I miss something?

Although I haven't checked how the most recent CBA may have changed this, I found this article interesting. If it didn't have direct quotes from NFL GMs, I would not have believed it: http://voices.yahoo.com/do-nfl-teams-profit-playoffs-2709.html

Thanks for the freedom (it ain't free), and Merry Christmas!

mrags & PTR, You're both absolutely correct that decisions by state courts in CO and VA aren't binding on a New York court. But the idea that penalty clauses in contracts are unenforceable is a pretty basic one that doesn't seem to vary much between states. If you want to see what a New York court said about this issue when applying NY law, here's one example: http://www.nycourts.gov/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/October%202001/Bates%20Advertising.htm After my original posts above in this thread, a few more details about the new lease deal have come out: http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121221/CITYANDREGION/121229782/two-bills-drive-1004 Some of those details make specifying $400 million as liquidated damages early in the new lease slightly more reasonable than the first sketchy reports about the new deal. Assuming Tim Graham's article has the details right, the combined public spending by the state and county over the full 10 year term isn't just $95 million for stadium repairs and improvements - - - there's also $7.7 million/yr for combined working capital, operating expenses and game-day expenses. It's not clear if the latter expenditures will vary over time, so let's call it $77 million over the full 10 year term. Unlike the present lease, the new lease will actually require the Bills to pay some rent. At $800k/yr, that's another $8 million in maximum potential losses to the public if the Bills skipped town shortly after signing the new lease. Ignoring the fact that the public actually would save $7.7 million/yr in expenses if the Bills moved, if you just simplistically add those numbers up you can get to 95 + 77 + 8 = $180 million. Maybe, just maybe, that's close enough to $400 million to make $400 million a reasonable estimate of potential public damages if the Bills skip town early in the new lease. But there's still a problem. If the politicians were actually trying to estimate what the public's losses might be if the Bills moved, that estimate would be highest in the early years of the lease (when the stadium repairs and improvements had been made and paid for but not yet recouped from tax revenues), and gradually decrease over time. In the last year of the lease, when it was about to expire, the estimated public losses from a Bills move would be much less. That's the general shape of how the opt-out fee in the current lease changed over time. But instead, the new lease specifies a $400 million liquidated damages amount for any move in the first 6 years of the lease, followed by a year at about $28 million, and then back to $400 million for the last 3 years of the 10 year term. We also have politicians predictably on record saying they made the first 6 years of the lease "ironclad." That may help them politically, but it's just plain stupid from an enforceability standpoint. They might as well just say that they wrote a big penalty clause into the lease for every year except year 7. There's just no way to rationally argue that the way the opt-out fee varies over time is a reasonable estimate of the losses the public will incur if the Bills were to move out at various times during the 10 year lease. So bottom line is that I still think the liquidated damages clause in the new lease won't be enforced by a court if it ever gets litigated. Obviously, predictions about the enforceability of the new lease would be easier if we get to see the actual text after it is signed. I'm actually encouraged by the disclosure in the Tim Graham article about how the lease will explicitly give the Bills the right to seek an injunction from the court to prevent the Bills from moving - - but we have almost no details about how that clause will be set up. As for the $400 million opt-out fee, it's a fair question to ask why Ralph and the politicians would agree to such a clause if they already knew there was a good chance it would not be enforceable in court. Check this out: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/70.5.Sullivan.pdf Ralph and the politicians both benefit if the public believes that the new lease is "ironclad," even if in reality any new owner of the Bills could move the team. Ralph makes more $ (paying customers won't stay away thinking the team is about to move), and the politicians get to take credit for being tough negotiators who locked the Bills into staying in Buffalo for the next 10 years. I got my shopping done today and will be going camping and off the grid for a few days. If you want to discuss this more I'll check back here after the 25th. Either way, I hope y'all have a nice Christmas!

We have some pretty tech-savvy posters here, so here goes: I allowed my laptop to install some updates to Windows Vista today, and then got an immediate notice that updates were available for RealPlayer, which I also allowed my laptop to immediately install. I ran the new version of RealPlayer to watch 1 YouTube video. I then included a link to that YouTube video in an email message to a few people. Here's an email delivery failure notice that came back: ____________________________________________________________________________ This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. lanrerasak74@yahoo.com Final-Recipient: rfc822;lanrerasak74@yahoo.com Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp;554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (lanrerasak74@yahoo.com) [-5] - mta1276.mail.bf1.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________________________ That email address is totally unfamiliar to me - - it's not an email address that I specified in my outgoing message. Three questions: 1. Is it possible that an intended recipient changed their email address, set up some sort of auto-forwarding, and then closed the second account? Seems unlikely (but at least one intended recipient has an email address that I had not sent a message to in over a year). 2. Is there some way for me to find out whether my outgoing email messages are or were being secretly forwarded somewhere without my consent? 3. The delivery failure notice specifies a "Final-Recipient" with a prefix "rfc822;" in front of the non-existant yahoo account name - - does that mean anything? Seems bizarre. Any input appreciated, as I was paranoid about computer security even before this. Thanks.

Let me start by saying I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo, both during and after the term of the new 10 year lease. I also agree with you that the contractual obligations of the Bills, including the lease for Ralph Wilson stadium, don't disappear when a new owner buys the team, whether or not Ralph is then living. As for calling BS, well, I suppose even robots are entitled to their opinions. I'm just some anonymous voice on a football message board with a bad sense of humor and a lot of brothers named Darryl. I'm not asking you to believe there's a potential problem with the opt-out clause just because I say so - - but maybe you should think about whether the excerpts from the links below were written by people with some expertise: 1. Leases are contracts involving real estate that generally are governed by contract principles. A lawyer who specializes in litigating complex commercial real estate disputes says so: http://www.pircher.c...ticle.php?i=327 2. Same source states that if a lease requires an unreasonably large payment for a tenant's default, the courts may find the payment to be an unenforceable penalty: 3. Here's what a Virginia lawyer who advises commercial landlords and tenants says (from the 3rd piece down, the one posted on June 15, 2011): http://fairfax-virgi....com/tag/lease/ 4. Here's what a Colorado law firm that represents landlords wrote in 2009 about opt-out payments in leases - - what they call a "lease break fee:" http://thslawfirm.co.../ab26de3873.pdf 5. By now you should understand that there's a reasonable basis for believing that if somebody buys the Bills, they might ask a court to decide if the $400 million opt-out clause is an unenforceable penalty. Although it does not specifically talk about leases, here's a lengthy law review article that discusses how courts have decided whether contract clauses are unenforceable penalties: http://ir.lawnet.for...enalty fordham" Why would Ralph and politicians agree to such a large opt-out fee if they know it might be unenforceable? Stay tuned - - this is already a long post and I don't have time to explain right now. I still gotta buy my middle brother Darryl's Christmas gift.

There's a potential problem with the enforceability of an opt-out fee that is much larger than the state and county's required stadium repair and improvement contribution. If it's too big, it may not be enforceable at all, even if all parties freely agreed to it. Is a $400 million opt-out fee unenforceable as a "penalty" when it is more than 4x the combined $95 million that the new lease reportedly requires the state and county governments to pay for stadium repairs and improvements? There's a reason why the old lease had an opt-out fee that initially about matched the government's required investment, and gradually declined over time. Will explain more when I have time - - can't today. Don't underestimate a billionaire's lawyers.

jboyst, I am not aware of anything similar in the works for NC, but VA just changed its law to include lost profits in the calculation of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases: http://www.williamsmullen.com/news/major-changes-virginia-eminent-domain-law-horizon (see description of proposed change at item # 4) http://www.thelandlawyers.com/blog/eminent-domain/ (documenting VA voter passage by 3-1 margin with support from VA Farm Bureau) Sorry it's not better news - - at least it shows that the public of a neighboring state favors allowing recovery of lost profits in your kind of dispute - - but that's scant comfort for you. Is the farm lobby stronger in VA than in NC?

**spindle**

In the same vein, how about Jose Canseco for GM (if he's not getting pummeled in a boxing ring somewhere)?

Thanks for the input on the Elantra GT. I share your preference for manual transmissions, especially in anything sporty. Handling is probably a little more important to me than speed, but I like fast as much as the next guy. My last 2 cars (with manual transmissions) had published 0-60 times of just over 7 seconds, and that's peppy enough for me. Unless you really need a new car right away, there are advantages to ordering one. You can get exactly the options you want, and it makes it pointless for the salesman to try to convince you that you need to pony up more $ now to avoid the possibility that somebody else will buy the car out from under you. I also think it makes it more likely that the salesman will believe that I know exactly what I want, and I'm just shopping for the best price. True story - - last time I bought a new car, we eventually agreed on a price for my order, and then they sent me to their "after-sale" guy to try to upsell me on stuff. I listened to and turned down insistent pitches for an extended warranty, and then for rust-proofing. The last pitch was for a service to engrave the vehicle ID number on certain parts that were the most likely to get stripped if the car was stolen. It came with a window sticker to notify potential thieves that the service was used, so that the thief would move on to a softer target. I told the guy I wasn't interested, but asked how much he would charge just for the window sticker. He sighed, showed me the door and said they would call me when the car arrived.

This might interest you: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2012/11/11/Auto-Outlook-Hyundai-Kia-revise-mileage/UPI-73621352629800/ecently I attended an auto show this year - - great way to check out lots of different makes and models with no sales pressure. It helps me narrow down the list of what I want to eventually test drive when the time comes. I sometimes have headroom or legroom issues, so a few possibilities get thrown out based solely on ergonomics. For the most part, my auto show visit confirmed what I already expected based on past test drives some years ago and what I have more recently read. The big surprise to me - - I had very low expectations for Hyundai models, but the Hyundai Elantra GT is now on my list of future models to test drive. I don't know anything about its power or handling, but it felt like comparable models that I sat in costing way more $$$, and the warranty is a plus. Just my 2 won.

$200!!! Nobody has ever offered me more than $75 for my sister Darlene.

Just a guess but Baltimore, Houston, Jacksonville and Miami all can watch their own hometown team play the early game as the first part of a doubleheader on CBS. So if you are the Fox station in those cities and can only air one game, you are going to pick a game that starts at 4 pm (because no matter how good the teams are that you can choose from at 1 pm, everybody's gonna watch their hometown team at 1 pm on CBS anyway). So that leaves you with three games to choose from at 4 pm. Arizona has lost 9 games in a row, and got beat 58-0 last week. I wouldn't expect many people to have much interest in watching AZ play anybody this week. That leaves you 2 options: Buf/Sea or SD/Carolina SD is 5-8, Carolina is 4-9 Buf/Sea is probably the best of 3 bad options for Fox stations in Balt, Hou, Jax and Miami.

<<------ I could let you look behind the mask and explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you!