ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

No big surprise, but the CA governor signed legislation today designed to grease the skids for getting a new downtown LA NFL stadium built: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/28/2428597/brown-signs-bill-to-help-get-nfl.html

He has a long history of dirty play: http://www.aolnews.com/2008/10/26/vince-wilfork-and-cheap-shots-go-together-like-rodney-harrison-a/

Let's just hope they keep the knobs turned all the way up on that Large Hadron Super Collider gizmo until February.

There's a perfectly rational explanation for this - - the laws of the universe have changed (as evidenced by, among other things, the Bills starting the season with 2 wins and sub-atomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light) - - see post #47 here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/135378-got-a-weird-feeling/page__pid__2258408__st__40#entry2258408

It's almost like there's been a cosmic shift, and the laws of the universe have changed since last season. Uhh, wait a minute, this just in: On April 21, 2011, they turned the knobs on the Large Hadron Supercollider on the Swiss/French border up to 11, and in attempt to find the elusive Higgs boson, reached luminosity levels never before achieved in the history of man. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20056468-264.html?tag=mncol;txt One week later, on April 28, 2011, the Bills took Marcel Dareus (an actual lineman) in the first round of the NFL draft, ending a long streak of questionable Bills draft "strategy." On September 23, 2011, two days before the Bills are scheduled to play the Patriots in a series that has not seen a Bills victory since 2003, physicists announced the "shocking" discovery that their high-tech radar gun had clocked particles traveling faster than the speed of light! http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20110594-264/physics-shocker-neutrinos-clocked-faster-than-light/ When the Bills stun those outside WNY by beating the Patriots, will it be a coincidence? I think not.

Larry Tanenbaum made efforts to buy a professional football team (the CFL Argos) long before the Bills-In-Toronto Series was negotiated. Here's what the Globe & Mail said on March 13, 2004: http://www.cansoc.org/showthread.php?21750-MLSE-set-to-bail-on-Toronto-stadium You could argue that this shows that Tanenbaum didn't even have the stroke to make MLSE buy a 50% stake in the Argos, so how could he swing putting together an ownership group to buy an NFL team - - a much more expensive proposition? Maybe there was a realization that the Argos, while cheaper, involved a much greater risk of loss than an NFL team. There is reason to believe that Tanenbaum and Paul Godfrey were really the "visionaries" behind trying to bring an NFL team to Toronto, and Ted Rogers was the guy "brought in" because he controlled the necessary stadium and was a source of additional required cash. Here's what the Toronto Star wrote about the matter in 2005: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-262483.html This view is consistent with a statement Ted Rogers himself made in 2006. Here's what the Toronto Star wrote: http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/toronto-seeks-nfl-team-752684/ Here's yet another article indicating that Tanebaum was the "leader" of the early efforts to bring an NFL team to Toronto: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/09/06/nfl-franchise-rogers.html Maybe identifying the visionary, as opposed to who was "brought in," depends on who you talk to. I'm not saying Ted Rogers wasn't a key figure in getting the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal done - - I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that a near-billionaire like Tanenbaum would be as heavily involved in seeking an NFL team as the above reports indicate if he didn't have some skin in the game. Why would Tanenbaum make so much effort if he didn't reasonably expect at least some equity stake in any eventual deal (of whatever kind) to bring NFL games to Toronto?

For a summary of the rule (not the actual rule), see: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage Or look up the actual text of the rule in the official 2010 rule book (haven't seen the 2011 version): https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_uI2zLhGzaRMWMyZjkzYjUtZjRiYy00MTU5LWE5OWQtMjc1ZDEzNTFlM2E4&hl=en_US

My significant other says the same thing - - go figure!

If you can't test Sprint 4G coverage in advance at the exact location, type in the zip code on this coverage map and drill down for a rough idea of what Sprint says you'll get: http://ria.sprint.com/ria/pages/index.jsp?ms=4G#!/advantage/network/ But keep in mind that actual reception may not match the map: http://community.sprint.com/baw/message/337026?tstart=0

"Just give it to them" Leodis, don't run it out! Tight ends wide open Since Malloy's first game Pats have dominated us Nix and Chan now here Donte Whitner gone And Poz down in Jacksonville Payback is a b*tch!

Thanks for the chuckle. P.S. Remember Ruby Ridge!

I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but if the Toronto mayor wants to help lure an NFL fra I suggest you check out the picture at the top left corner of this Toronto Sun article (the Toronto mayor is the one with the football in a three point stance on the left, his looney councilman brother is on the right): http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/01/20/16969641.html Have you ever seen your uncle with his shirt off? Just sayin'

Thanks for the link - - I hadn't seen that article. A few points: 1. Maybe the conversation that Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News had with Ralph Wilson went into more detail than what the quotes attributed to Wilson in the article show, but all Wilson was quoted as saying in the article was that he's never sold any portion of the Bills. That's not inconsistent with the idea that he could have granted a right-of-first-refusal, because any such right would not require a sale during Ralph's lifetime. I'll grant you that Gaughan could easily have gotten an answer from Wilson that would make it clear whether any such right was ever granted, but if he did, the quotes in the article attributed to Wilson don't reflect that. Nothing Gaughan actually quoted Wilson as saying is inconsistent with the existance of a right-of-first-refusal that hasn't been exercised yet, because Ralph is still alive. Does Gaughan understand enough about how a right-of-first-refusal exercisable on Ralph's death would work so that Gaughan could detect a somewhat non-responsive answer and ask the required follow-up question to nail it down? I don't know. 2. I don't know if it's accurate, but it has been reported that Ralph Wilson Enterprises once owned a TV station, and later sold it to an ownership group that included Ralph Wilson and others - - maybe Ralph forgot about it or maybe Ralph wasn't referring to Ralph Wilson Enterprises in his comments to Gaughan: http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-11-29/news/28590508_1 3. Even if no right-of-first-refusal exists, Toronto people may bid on the Bills if the team is put up for sale after Ralph passes, so following developments in Toronto is still relevant to the Bills' future. Edit: 4. "I've never sold any business that we've been in . . ." Maybe just a slip of the tongue, but who's "we"? Probably just a reference to the private corporations he owns as "we" (because he runs them with the help of employees like Littmann), but it's hard to be sure exactly what he was referring to by "we."

I'll give the looney Toronto councilman one thing, he doesn't lack for big and impractical ideas. He has recently suggested "pulling a Dubai" and building a man-made island in Lake Ontario on which to build an NFL stadium, complete with dockside tailgating on boats! http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/03/feature-doug-ford-%E2%80%94-idea-man/

Hey jw, If you are still interested in the topic of whether Toronto can eventually get an NFL franchise (whether it's the Bills or some other team), check this out: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1045774--city-wants-to-seize-port-lands-project I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but if the Toronto mayor wants to help lure an NFL franchise to town, his looney councilman brother has previously proposed a new waterfront stadium, and the Toronto mayor is looking for a way to increase the city's control over $1.5 billion of previously committed public funds for waterfront development without raising a penny in new taxes - - is this part of a grand plan to use at least some portion of that $1.5 billion to help fund a new football stadium in Toronto? I don't know - - but it sure seems like a power grab that bears watching. There is reason to believe that the Toronto city council may vote on the proposed shift in waterfront development control tomorrow: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/ Some are predicting that the power grab by the Toronto mayor will fail despite lobbying by his looney councilman brother: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/2011/09/15/the-port-lands-vote-the-first-significant-defeat-for-the-ford-administration/ http://www.thestar.com/news/torontocouncil/article/1054843--two-more-ford-allies-reject-his-port-lands-vision I don't know how any of this will shake out, but it will be interesting to watch the power struggle for control of $1.5 billion in public funds by elected officials on record as wanting to bring NFL football to Toronto.

Hey Matt, I'm pretty confident that I won't find a smoking gun - - because if a right-of-first-refusal was ever granted in the first place there are good reasons why the parties to the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal would want to keep it secret. And in the unlikely event that anyone ever does find proof that a right-of-first-refusal was granted, you won't need to read this particular thread to find out about it - - the news would be talked about elsewhere. I'm not offended by your characterization, but if you consider this thread spam in the absence of a smoking gun, why not just ignore it? Or maybe ignore it but do a roughly quarterly search on the title so that you can skim it whenever the mood strikes? I do try to avoid repetitive posting of links that already appear elsewhere in this thread, except for when they are pertinent to someone else's reply. To give you a "heads-up," I recently found a few new Toronto-related links that I will probably post in the next several days - - but they are mainly in the "keeping an eye on Toronto's ambitions after Ralph's gone" category, rather than supporting the notion that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted. I suppose it's possible, but I don't really expect to find much new info about what happened before and during the time that the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal was first being negotiated. As I've pointed out before, even if you think the idea that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted is hogwash, there is certainly reason to think that people from Toronto might bid if the Bills go up for sale after Ralph is gone. For me, that is reason enough to periodically run google searches for new Toronto info, and share what I find. Not speaking of you, because your reply above was exceedingly polite, but if others find this topic upsetting and post rude replies, I figure it's really not very hard to ignore them. So I can hardly be offended if you make a rational choice to ignore this thread because it lacks the type of content you prefer to read. P.S. Would quarterly updates even be possible anyway? I'm not sure how long a thread with no recent replies remains open before the mods close it. Wouldn't it be worse if I was periodically starting a new thread about this topic, so that people with preferences similar to yours would not know in advance whether they should ignore it or not?

Yeah, just like there is no way that Erie County would let the Bills move one of their "home" games to Toronto and get absolutely nothing in return for allowing the Bills to escape the existing lease for one game per year. Not saying Ralph will demand a "sweetheart" escape clause, but if he did, do you really think that Erie County would say - - "we won't renew the lease and let you continue to play at Ralph Wilson Stadium if you demand a sweetheart escape clause"? That's not realistic. Ralph will get pretty much whatever escape clause he wants, especially if (1) the Orchard Park lease is negotiated before the new LA stadium gets a tenant, and (2) Ralph is demanding relatively minor stadium improvements (by current NFL standards). BTW, I don't know what criteria you would use to detemine if it qualifies as a "sweetheart" escape clause, but the current Orchard Park stadium lease allows the Bills to buy out the remaining term of the lease with a cash payment that declines over time: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2003/03/03/story2.html You really can't think of any potential economic advantage that Ralph would receive if he could just terminate the stadium lease any time he wanted? Really? Maybe, but it seems to me like a very plausible reason why Ralph would demand relatively minor stadium improvements might be that he plans to seek a pretty favorable escape clause. Not because he has any plans to move the franchise during his lifetime, but because unlike you, he can think of a reason why it would maximize the value of the franchise to his estate.

I have been happy at home with DISH Network, which doesn't offer Sunday Ticket or the equivalent, so instead of going out to a bar or restaurant every Sunday I bought the Game Rewind for $40 at nfl.com this year. Dish Network offered a free preview of their Red Zone channel for the Week 1 games, which showed a lot of Bills highlights (but not the full game), so I wasn't in a rush to see the full Chiefs game on rewind. I finally watched the rewind of the entire game Saturday afternoon, and it worked great. You get the broadcast network feed, but with all commercials and the half time show stripped out. I watched the entire game in just over two hours. The video streamed continuously without interruption, and the resolution was crisp, but your experience my vary depending on your Internet connection speed. I have occasional evening and weekend access to a fellow Bills fan's fast workplace Internet connection, and the employer doesn't mind personal Internet access during non-working hours, so I watched the game there. The connection speed today tested out at a little over 40 Mbps down and a little over 20 Mbps up at www.speedtest.net - - not sure what your experience would be like at more typical and slower home connection speeds. Bottom line - - if you don't mind waiting til very late Sunday night or Monday to watch the game, and have a fast Internet connection, Game Rewind appears to be a great option. I think (not certain) that you can first access any given Sunday's game only after the Sunday night game has finished, and later at times when no live NFL game is being broadcast.

Wealthy LA bond fund manager and Buffalo native Jeffrey Gundlach told the Wall Street Journal in late May, 2011 that he might be interested in putting a goup together to buy the Buffalo Bills. http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2011/05/27/23149/ Not commenting here on whether that is likely to happen. Gundlach has been in a nasty court fight with his former employer - - for more on what happened before the case went to the jury, see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-13/tcw-tells-jury-jeffrey-gundlach-stole-trade-secrets-to-start-doubleline.html http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/213480/20110914/tcw-gundlach-court-drama-turned-over-to-jury.htm The jury reached a verdict late yesterday - - here's a very preliminary report: http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/271927/gundlach-jury-reaches-verdict-in-trade-secrets-case More detailed reports explaining the outcome will probably be published soon. FWIW, Jeffrey Gundlach will be a guest on the CNBC TV show "Strategy Session" that airs on Monday, September 19, 2011. The focus of the interview is likely to be the outcome of his court case, but I suppose it's possible (but unlikely) that he might be asked about his earlier statements to the WSJ about being intersted in buying the Bills.

If there's a lot of folks in the other corner, just tell 'em: "Little guys get in groups, big guys single file!"

Good one! Maybe it was the same raptor that's been stalking Michael Buble: http://bubleraptor.tumblr.com/

Bleacher Report is often criticized here, but the article below appears to have been written by an agent who has represented injured players and is familiar with the IR and potential injury settlement process. It's a couple years old, so who knows if the 2011 CBA changed anything, but I learned a few things about the process when reading it - - some interesting insights from an agent's perspective: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/236279-negotiating-an-injury-settlement-by-jack-bechta

See post #24 above. The FCC rule specifically applies to "building regulations" - - you may have the right to ignore the building rule and get a satellite dish anyway (depending on the reason why the building bans dishes and where you would need to locate it to get a signal). Whoever runs your building won't like it, and it might not be worth the trouble to make a stink about it.

This link provides a different take. There's a lot of pure garbage in some articles at the same site, but this one appears to be supported by quotes from NFL management types (although it was written in 2005, so there have been two new CBAs signed since then - - numbers could have changed): http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4020/do_nfl_teams_profit_from_the_playoffs_pg2.html?cat=3 Not sure if this applies to the Bills, because it's at least possible that they incur less playoff game day expenses than most teams because of their sweetheart lease with Erie County - - I haven't tried to figure that out. I also don't know if it's still true that the league keeps all playoff ticket revenue - - haven't tried to check that out either.

I suggest that you go back to your MBA friend, ask him to research the interplay between estate taxes and gift taxes (for gifts that exceed something like $11,000 per year to any particular donee - - $22,000 per year if given to that same donee jointly by a married couple) and get back to us with the details of how Ralph could distribute a significant portion of a billion dollars this way to avoid paying taxes. The threshold for gifts to any particular donee without triggering tax consequences may have gone up slightly from the $11,000/$22,000 per year that it once was, but if so, probably not by much. Tell your MBA friend to talk to an estate planner. Edit: Or have him read this: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Planning-and-Checklists/The-Gift-Tax/INF12036.html