ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

If there's only one football, then some of the games that the NFL says are being televised live must actually be shown on a tape-delayed basis. Kind of like that OJ movie about the moon landing, except not really because that was totally staged and not just tape-delayed. I don't think that's happening - - - I think they have more than one football and really do play several games simultaneously each week. And some people think I advocate conspiracy theories!

If Edwards contributed to making Heard look like Ted Washington, isn't that a good thing?

Yahoo Sports box score says he he had more total tackles (combining solo and assists) than any other DL or LB against the Giants: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore;_ylt=ApE_QUCj0RqNIbcYI33CMTRDubYF?gid=20111016019 He also leads all DL in YTD tackles by a wide margin: http://www.buffalobills.com/team/team-statistics.html

I have no problem with the team negotiating to extend him as cheaply as possible - - maybe ask him if he thinks he will have a more successful QB career with some other head coach. But in the end, pay him whatever is required to extend him. Ralph can afford it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html Based on current trends, you can expect other networks to also pay significantly more for their next contracts. Per Leigh Steinberg: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Television-ratings-show-NFL-dominance.html

Mr. Spock just called. He says that because your question presumes an unexpected contribution, the answer is: "Other - Someone or something totally out of left field." Anything else would be illogical, and the result of mere emotion.

If he could do it over again, he'd probably go with W.C. Fields' epitaph instead of Marv's pregame ritual.

I also think that Ralph's charitable donations are pretty admirable. And the point about donating a higher percentage of his available cash rings true. But the Forbes rankings are based on net worth - - which does not vary depending on whether Ralph's wealth is tied up in the Bills, or readily available in his checking account.

Red Dog - - Don't let this guy pull your leg. After all those Amish school kids got shot in PA a while back, the Amish elders decided that those in the Amish faith could use certain technology, but only to the extent it is required to support their families or keep them safe. So of course Ryan can travel with the team to away games. He would lose his job if he didn't. He is also allowed to use a rifle or other gun to defend himself and his family - - self-defense is everyone's right - - even if you're Amish. If you missed that story about the Amish school kids, it's real - - here's a link to a CNN article about it: http://articles.cnn.com/2006-10-02/us/amish.shooting_1_amish-community-school-shooting-charles-carl-roberts-iv?_s=PM:US If you rent the movie "Witness" with Harrison Ford, there is a scene near the end where even the old-school Amish grandfather helps Harrison Ford find a gun so that Harrison Ford can protect the grand-dad's kin. And that was even before the Amish school kids got shot. Now, are you gonna see Ryan get in fistfights like when Harrison Ford clobbered that guy who smeared ice cream on his friend's face (one of my favorite movie scenes of all time, by the way)? No, because the Amish will peacefully tolerate embarrasment and indignity - - such things don't create any physical injury - - just inner mental strength. If anybody here disputes that Ryan is Amish, take a close look at his uniform on Sundays. You will not see any buttons, because buttons are not "plain" enough. Kind of ironic, because now with HD quality TVs, those of us who are not Amish can see such things, while the Amish themselves, for obvious reasons, cannot. I just wish Ryan was from Ohio - - it would make the line in "Witness" about them Ohio Amish bein' a little different (right after Harrison Ford breaks the bully's nose) pretty applicable to the great year Ryan is having so far with the Bills. Edit: In case you missed the movie, here's the scene I mentioned - - the good part starts about 1:20 into the 3:39 clip. Some idiot marked this clip up with a few editorial comments, but you can click a time or two to make almost all of them go away:

I guess some of us just know where to find and place our own pole, and some of us don't.

Ralph Wilson is not individually a party to the existing stadium lease - - Buffalo Bills, Inc. (a New York corporation) is. That corporation, which owns the team, will continue to be obligated to comply with the terms of the lease even if Ralph dies tomorrow. Corporations continue to exist, even after the individual who owns the shares of that corporation dies. It won't be any different if Ralph dies after the new lease is signed. You do, however, have a valid point about the possibility of renegotiation. If Ralph dies, and somebody else becomes the controlling shareholder of Buffalo Bills, Inc., that new controlling shareholder might very well seek to have Buffalo Bills, Inc. renegotiate the lease terms. Whether a renegotiation actually happened, however, would depend on whether all the parties to the lease were willing to make a new agreement. The County and State might display more backbone in enforcing their legal lease rights if they knew in advance that a new agreement would make the team more likely to move. They gave away one home game to Toronto, when they had the legal right to complain about it, because they apparently believed the Toronto game would make it MORE likely that the Bills would remain in Buffalo long term.

When parties to a commercial lease agree in advance to a fee that the tenant must pay if the tenant later breaches the lease, the term for that fee is "liquidated damages." But that's just a fancy legal phrase for exactly the type of fee you suggest. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/commercial-lease-early-termination-lawyers.html Unfortunately for us, for reasons beyond the scope of this post, courts place certain limits on the amount of "liquidated damages" that can be enforced later, even if all parties to the lease voluntarily agree to a large dollar figure during negotiations. The amount of liquidated damages that can be enforced isn't a pre-set number - - it depends on what a court determines would have been a reasonable estimate of actual future damages, based on what the negotiating parties knew at the time the deal was struck. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/liquidated-damages-lawyer.html So if Ralph wants to use a liquidated damages clause to make it more likely that a future team owner will keep the team in Buffalo for the full duration of the new lease, the tricky part is picking the dollar figure. Pick a number too low, and the new owner might simply break the lease anyway and pay the pre-determined fee. Pick a number too high, and the courts might decide the liquidated damages clause is void, and refuse to enforce it at all. All of this assumes that Ralph would be willing to sacrifice some portion of the future sales price of the team in order to make it more likely that the Bills would stay in Buffalo for the duration of the lease after he's gone. People have different opinions about how likely that is.

Can you be any more specific about how you believe that rule works? It's not clear to me why more than just a present ownership interest in an NFL team would be required to participate in revenue sharing.

I'm not crazy about the idea of Gillett owning the Bills, either, but there is reason to think the Bills already had about $128 million of non-stadium debt in 2009: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130751-conventional-wisdom-bills-have-no-debt-service/page__p__2173076__hl__%2Bconventional+%2Bwisdom__fromsearch__1#entry2173076

OK, now I'm upset. I sometimes post here on behalf of my middle brother Darryl because it's a way to communicate with fellow Bills fans about the team he loves, and because a freak accident in the NBA Hall of Lame parking lot crushed his larynx and left him a quadraplegic. Like it was his fault that fact checker got laid off because of the NBA lockout? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to post here by blowing through a tube to type? And now I gotta put up with you making fun of my brother's inability to speak? Gotta admit, though, there are days when his inability to think is a bigger handicap than his mootness.

Actually, there is a scenario where beating an NFC team IS better than beating an AFC team, because a few years back the NFL changed the tiebreak rules. First off, here's what the NFL's own website says the current tiebreak procedures are: http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures Let's focus on tiebreaking procedures within the Bills' AFC East division - - here's the current tiebreak procedures: Note that the THIRD tiebreaker is "best won-lost-tied percentage in common games," while "best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference" is only the FOURTH tiebreaker. Every year, each AFC East team plays the same four NFC teams as every other AFC East team. So for purposes of breaking a tie to determine the AFC East division winner, ANY game against an NFC team will always be a game against a "common" opponent. Conversely, every year, each AFC East team plays two games against AFC opponents that are not on the schedule of any other AFC East team. For the current season, the non-common AFC opponents for each AFC East team are as follows: 1. Buffalo - - Cincinnati and Tennessee 2. New England - - Pittsburgh and Indianapolis 3. NY Jets - - Baltimore and Jacksonville 4. Miami - - Cleveland and Houston So if the Bills split their 2 games with any AFC East rival this year and wind up with the same overall won-loss record as that rival, and both teams sweep their games against all other AFC East teams, then the Bills would be better off, for tie break purposes, by beating any NFC team, rather than Cincinnati or Tennessee.

Several Canadian NHL franchise owners are included in this recently published list of the 100 richest Canadians for 2011: http://list.canadianbusiness.com/rankings/rich100/2011/Default.aspx?sp2=1&d1=a&sc1=0

Did my middle brother Darryl put you up to this?

You can see the detailed cross-ownership policy (assuming it has not been significantly amended since 2006) as set forth in NFL Finance Committee resolution 1997 FC-3, which is attached to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution & Bylaws at: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf The policy starts at page 174/292. Although it is not drafted with great clarity, it sounds to me like none of the cities listed in item #6 qualify as a "neutral area," because they are defined as being included in "home territories." So how many NHL cities does that leave as candidates for cross-ownership? Toronto and all other Canadian NHL cities would definitely be in - - LA, Orange County (Anaheim) and Nashville would be out. Columbus?

Maybe he doesn't understand how they work, but at least he knows what they are.

Just a wild-ass guess, but how about Larry Tanenbaum - - minority owner of the Leafs who may get bought out soon? If he still wants to get an NFL team for Toronto, I could see him schmoozing Goodell at every opportunity.

That was a very enlightening post, but I'm having trouble understanding something about "today's NFL." I may just be missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time), so my brother Darryl says you're probably just the man to help me out. Please read post #22 here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/136509-good-points-by-tmq/page__pid__2275033__st__20#entry2275033 Then explain to me why scoring points is more important in "today's NFL" than preventing the other team from scoring points.

Incoming!

In my personal opinion, part of Goodell's job is to make fans feel good about the NFL in general and their team in particular. If you drill down through all the nice-sounding but fairly ambiguous NFL promotion with a critical eye, you find this little gem buried in an article that repeats Goodell's "Feel good about your team" talking points: http://niagara-gazette.com/sports/x1038034921/Commish-inspires-Buffalo-fans-to-keep-Bill-lievin My translation - - "I don't have a clue about what Ralph plans to do with the team after he's gone, but you should feel good about the NFL in general and the Bills in particular." If an announcement about a long term renewal of the Bills' stadium lease is made, as expected, we need to take a long hard look at not just the duration of the lease, but what kind of buy-out provision it contains (the current lease has one). I've read that Ralph is not asking for significant stadium improvements in the present lease negotiations. That doesn't sound like Ralph to me. Just my speculation, but maybe Ralph is looking to get a less onerous lease buy-out provision in return for not seeking significant stadium improvements. Or slightly less ominously, maybe he's seeking approval for additional regular season games in Toronto. Again, just my speculation, but if Ralph is in a position to ask the County and/or State to spend money on stadium improvements (with LA building a new stadium), yet Ralph is not asking for such improvements, my guess is he's asking for something else instead. Wonder what it is? Edit: Just read this Buffalo Evening News story: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article588078.ece On September 18th, the Buffalo Evening News ran a story that characterized the stadium improvements sought by Wilson as "modest" and "fundamental." http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article560879.ece Not sure what to make of the recharacterization of desired stadium improvements to "significant," but I still think that Goodell has no clue what Ralph's plans are for selling the team after he's gone.

It is my tentative understanding that federal estate tax law currently does exempt all property left to a surviving spouse from federal estate taxes upon the death of the first spouse. So if you assume that Ralph wants to leave everything he owns solely to his wife Mary, and nothing to his children, then I think your above statement is accurate with respect to federal estate taxes that would be due upon Ralph's death. It is also my tentative understanding, however, that (1) Mary is the step-mother (not the biological mother) of Ralph's children, (2) Mary's sister's daughter is employed very high in the management team of Buffalo Bills, Inc. and (3) Ralph's surviving children are not. I don't have links right now to support these three assertions, but my recollection is that they are true - - If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know. Ralph is certainly free to leave his assets to anyone he wants, but in this situation, I would be surprised if Ralph simply left all of his assets to Mary and nothing to his surviving children. This stuff can get complicated. And we haven't even talked about how any of this would be impacted by the use of a trust, which is likely. But it remains my tentative understanding that at least to the extent that Ralph leaves assets exceeding a combined total of $5 million to his surviving children, the "double taxation" would happen if (1) Ralph sold the team while he was alive, and (2) then upon his death left more than $5 million of the sales proceeds to his children. And even if Ralph DID sell the team during his lifetime and then left all of the sales proceeds to Mary, there is still a double taxation issue. Capital gains taxes would be due for the year of the sale, and whatever was left over (less $10 million) would be subject to estate taxes later when Mary eventually died (assuming she didn't spend it or re-marry and leave it all to her future husband upon her death). Conversely, if Ralph continues to own the team until he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up tax basis in the assets they inherit, and capital gains tax on roughly $800 milliom of appreciation that happened during Ralph's lifetime never has to be paid by anyone. That's a pretty powerful incentive to delay any sale of the team until after Ralph dies.

Interesting article - thanks. I need to think about the ramifications a bit. Even though the changes in the law potentially benefit people like Ralph, I have a hard time seeing how they would financially outweigh the "double taxation" caused by paying capital gains taxes on a sale during Ralph's lifetime, followed by estate taxes that are calculated based on his net worth at time of death (see the "Edit" I added to my most recent post above). If the new gift tax law somehow lets Ralph shelter an additional $9 million from gift/estate taxes (compared to the $1 million under the old law), isn't that benefit still going to be a lot less than 15% of his as-yet-unrealized profit on the sale of a roughly $800 million asset that he bought for something like $25,000 many years ago? Wouldn't a pre-death sale of Ralph's stock in Buffalo Bills, Inc. trigger a federal capital gains tax of very roughly ($800 million X 0.15) = $120 million? I'm open to anyone's ideas, but I can't see how the gift/estate tax law changes could save Ralph enough money to overcome the burden of about $120 million in federal capital gains taxes that he would be required to pay for a pre-death sale.