ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

This is an example of "knocking down straw men." My only prior posts in this thread were post #s 30, 36 and 39. Although I can be pretty long-winded at times, those three were short. They contain no such claim.

The businessman's hope is that it MORE than offsets the cost of servicing the debt, thereby increasing the percent return on the amount of his own capital that the businessman actually invested. The shorthand term for this is "leverage." If you use leverage to buy an asset and it increases in value, you can get higher percentage returns on the amount of capital invested than if you paid 100% cash for the same asset. But leverage is risky, because it magnifies any losses too, not just any gains. A common use of leverage is buying a house. Most people make a down payment with their own cash that amounts to only 5% to 20% of the total purchase price, and use a mortgage to borrow the rest. But there are some people who just use cash they already have to make the purchase. The article below has a chart with straightfoward calculations showing how you can get a higher percentage return on the amount of cash you actually invest if you borrow money to purchase a house, as opposed to using 100% of your own cash to make the same purchase, if the house goes up in value. http://www.ipinglobal.com/ipin-live/article/278368/a-basic-guide-to-leverage So debt isn't always bad - - but it appears, at least from the Forbes estimates, that the Bills have more debt than a lot of people assume.

First, I think there is plenty of blame for both sides in the labor dispute. If you think posting information about coach's contract provisions that I do not recall seeing elsewhere on TBD is "making a big deal" about the lockout and being overly critical of the owners, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But mainly, you're just being ornery. Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the coach's association did not contact even one coach anywhere in the world before filing the amicus brief. Even if that were true, the coach's association must have had SOME reason for filing it (even if every single NFL coach in hindsight also thinks it was a bad idea). I identified my speculation as exactly that . . . speculation. It may turn out to be correct speculation, or it may turn out to be incorrect speculation, but nothing in your post tends to suggest which it will be. I'll probably regret this, but go ahead and enlighten me. Why do YOU think the coach's association filed the amicus brief in support of the players? Or do you think it was a totally random event . . . kind of like the Big Bang theory for creation of the universe. BOOM! Amicus brief filed by coach's association for absolutely no reason whatsoever. BTW, thanks for the link - - it actually had some useful information.

There are plenty of opinions in the OP that I diasagree with. I think Ralph has his faults, but in my personal opinion his willingness to keep the Bills in Buffalo more than compensates for them. So I am generally a fan of his, but not blindly so. In the interest of factual accuracy . . . 1. Whenever I see posts containing obvious "cut and paste" quotations without a link to the original source material it makes me wonder why. So I "tried it on for size" and found it didn't fit because it was too small. Your source was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wilson Here's the part you edited out: "However, the Buffalo Bills will be celebrating 50 years of playing professional football in Buffalo during the 2009 season. Mr. Wilson was officially inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, August 8, 2009 with ESPN Sports icon Chris Berman acting as his "presenter". Wilson was scheduled to receive his Hall of Fame ring in a halftime ceremony during the Bills game against the Cleveland Browns on October 11, 2009.[2] However, Wilson cancelled the event at the last moment, without notifying the press or fans, and no explanation was given. It was widely speculated that Wilson cancelled the event out of fear of being booed by Bills fans for the team's chronic poor performance on the field and a series of highly unpopular managerial decisions.[3] Thoroughbred racing Ralph Wilson has also been involved for a number of years in the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing both as a breeder and as an owner in France and the United States. He notably bred Santa Anita Derby winner, Jim French as well as two-year-old European susperstar Arazi, winner of the 1991 Breeders' Cup Juvenile and European Horse of the Year. [4] Another horse, Outta Here, raced in the 2003 Kentucky Derby and finished in seventh place." 2. As for your derisive comments about the revenues generated by the Bills in comparison to the Packers and Steelers, the best source I know of for that information is Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html For the 2009 season Forbes says: Revenue Steelers - - - $243 million Packers - - - $242 million Bills - - - - - $228 million Operating Income (EBITDA) Bills - - - - - $28.2 million Steelers - - - $17.9 million Packers - - - $ 9.8 million At least for 2009, while Ralph had $14 or $15 million less in revenues (a difference of less than 7%), his operating income was almost three times that of the Packers, and a little less than twice that of the Steelers. The 7% revenue difference does NOT explain the success differential between the small market Bills, on the one hand, and the small market Steelers and Packers, on the other. As I said, I'm generally a fan of Ralph's. But don't deride others' opinions if you don't have the facts, either.

Based solely on his college career and draft position (no way to know if he was really gonna be an NFL star): "RB Ki-Jana Carter, Penn State, 1995 Bengals moved up to take him first overall and gave him a then-record $7.1 million signing bonus. Owner Mike Brown called him the team's ``bell cow.'' Tore ACL in his left knee on his third preseason carry in Detroit, ending the season and starting a career cut short by injuries at every turn."

My brother Darryl says when Jerry was little, Jerry's momma had to tie pork chops to his ears so the dog 'ud play with 'im.

I have frequently seen it stated here that the Bills have no debt service - - I tended to believe it because (1) the statements were made by rational and seemingly well-informed people, and (2) it meshed nicely with the notion that Ralph Wilson follows conservative, old-school business practices that have enabled him to make a profit even in a small and declining market like Buffalo. After all, he originally bought in for about what a new car costs these days, and has watched his investment grow. But is it true that the Bills have no debt service? Maybe not. Take another look at this August 25, 2010 Forbes chart on NFL team valuations that has been posted in several other threads: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_DOV.html Based on information for the 2009 season, Forbes estimates (after applying the information in the chart footnotes about how the terms are defined) that the Buffalo Bills had: 1. 2009 revenue of $228 million; 2. 2009 operating income (EBITDA) of $28.2 million; and 3. a then-estimated value (without deduction for debt other than any stadium debt) of $799 million. But there is a another column we never talk about. It says that if you include whatever stadium debt they may have had in the team's debt, then: 4. in 2009 the Bills had a debt/value ratio of 16%. How should we interpret that 16% number? For starters, although I welcome any additional information (regardless of where it leads), I am not aware of any source indicating that the Bills have any stadium debt. I haven't researched the original funding for Ralph Wilson Stadium, so maybe the Bills have some lingering original stadium debt that I've never heard about, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the current Bills lease to support the notion that the Bills have any stadium debt: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml If my assumption that the Bills have no stadium debt is correct, then we can get rid of some of the qualifiers for the Forbes estimates, and it simplifies to - - the Bills have: 3. a then-estimated value (without deduction for debt) of $799 million; and 4. non-stadium related debt in the 2009 season equal to 16% of $799 million. ($799 million) X (0.16) = $127.8 million. $127.8 million is not a crushing debt load for a growing business with 2009 revenues of $228 million, but it's not totally insignificant, either. And certainly not the conventional wisdom around here. So why $127.8 million in debt in 2009? --- Lockout war chest? --- Didn't get much on the Taurus trade-in? --- Confidential loan from the closely held Bills to help his other business interests (that I never read much of anything about) survive the Great Recession? --- Al Davis needed another loan? --- ??? Comments welcome - and if I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time), please point it out, especially if you have a link to support your ideas about what I missed. P.S. I've always been more comfortable with cash-based accounting, even though it's my understanding that nearly all large businesses use accrual-based accounting methods. Is there some feature of accrual-based accounting, as applied to the way the Bills do business, that would make their debt seem artificially high in the Forbes chart? If so, maybe that explains why Forbes thinks the Bills had $127.8 million in 2009 debt, even though the conventional wisdom is that the team has no debt service. Then again, maybe the conventional wisdom is just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time for that, either.

I think this fairly accurately presents the way the owners look at their financial choices, with one exception. You are assuming that it will take a lost full season for the owners to get economic concessions from the players that would make up, over the full term of a new CBA, for lost game-related revenue (including the TV revenue) for however many games are lost. Just my opinion, but I think it will take less. Why? Because if your assumption about a new CBA having a 6 to 8 year term is correct, the owners will have 6-8 years to recover their lost work stoppage revenue through reduced player costs over the full term of the CBA. Conversely, the average player will be in the league for less than 6-8 years, so for any given player who eventually votes on whether to accept a proposed new CBA deal, that player has less time to recover work stoppage losses than his team's owner. And that's true even if you make the dubious assumption that the owners and players are financial equals in other respects (e.g., equally deep pockets to start with, equal advance planning for the effects of the work stoppage, equal ability to get loans to meet cash flow requirements during the work stoppage, etc.). Moreover, even if you somehow think that the average NFL career also lasts 6-8 years, roughly half of the players who will be voting on any proposed new CBA will already be half-way through that 6-8 year career at the time of the vote. Such players would only have 3-4 years to recover their work stoppage losses. Stated differently, if the proposed term of any new CBA really is 6-8 years, then the owners can withstand a longer work stoppage, as compared to the players, before the owners lose the ability to recover their work stoppage losses from future game-related revenue. I don't know if your assumption about a likely 6-8 year term for a new CBA is accurate, but it seems to me like the owners have a structural bargaining advantage if the proposed term of any future CBA is more than 1/2 of the length of an average NFL career. Just my 2 cents - - but this seems logical to me.

If you ever find a nice local pub owned by someone originally from Buffalo, and that pub isn't very crowded so they always put the Bills' game on the biggest screen directly over the bar with sound, and the next season the huge local Jets fan club decides to make this particular pub their home base and commandeer that TV, and you make a special effort to be there for the Bills v. Jets game that year and your significant other won't go with you because you've been known to say things like "Little guys get in groups, big guys single file," and you tell the guy who wants to wave the Jets flag on the landing above a crowd of 50 or so obnoxious Jets fans that he can wave his silly flag all day long but it will be a cold day in _____ before you will step aside to let him do it front and center where you happen to be standing - - - you might be a Bills fan.

The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootba...o-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.co...kout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches and executives contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout.

The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 — March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/18/nflpa-document-details-nfl-path-to-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.com/2011/02/24/nfl-nflpa-historical-lockout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches’ and executives’ contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days’ notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days’ notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout.

If you ever win the lottery, can we all party at your place?

From the oldest (1/23/11) article: "According to Hamilton’s general manager of finance Rob Rossini the tentative plan calls for the Ticats to play their home games during the construction process at McMaster University’s Ron Joyce Stadium. The capacity at McMaster is 6,000, but city staff suggests 10,000 seats could be added to boost capacity to around 16,000."

I suspect they learned plenty. The NFL hired a very experienced labor-relations law attorney, Bob Batterman, who says he represented the NHL during not one but TWO lockouts. They hired him in March, 2008, about 2 months before the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the CBA. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080310/This-Weeks-News/NFL-Brings-In-Veteran-Labor-Lawyer.aspx Batterman is apparently not the lead NFL negotiator, but he is advising the NFL. Here's an excerpt of what he said on or about 1/13/11 during an interview now posted on an NFL-related website: http://nfllabor.com/2011/01/13/transcript-of-bob-batterman-interview-with-ap/ "I had the experience with two NHL lockouts. Nobody else had that experience in professional sports. So I was in a natural place to be hired. If you are going to opt out of an agreement, if you are unhappy with the agreement, and you are seeking concessions, you have to be aware that you may be required to lock out to get the union to agree, in which case you want the best lawyer around to do it."

I think that may have been under consideration at one time, but here's a slightly more recent (2/26/11) article stating it will be "renovated:" http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/493414--ivor-wynne-gets-pan-am-approval The following article has a few more details about proposed reconstruction plans, but it is dated 1/23/11, so it's possible that some of the details changed en route to getting final approvals: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/23/ivor-wynne-reconstruction-faces-funding-gap/ "It remains unclear how long construction will take. The city report indicates the rebuild project may keep the Ticats out of Ivor Wynne for two seasons. The city has budgeted about $7-million in transitional costs to help the Ticats survive the seasons when Ivor Wynne is unusable."

Asking for a list of "all" such companies is unreasonable. If you actually want insights into how at least some judges and courts think about the issue, please read the following excerpts (ALJ = administrative law judge), taken from: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/880/880.F2d.1422.88-1084.html "The Dubuque Packing Company is a closely-held corporation engaged in meat processing and packaging. The company operated a plant in Dubuque, Iowa, handling beef and pork. During the entire relevant period, the Dubuque plant was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union . . ." * * * * * * "As the ALJ stated his interpretation of events, it was not until the announcement of the proposed transfer of work to a different plant that "the Union realized how much more severe had been the consequences of rejecting the Respondent's wage freeze proposal then [sic ] had been previously made known by the Company." ALJ op. at 26. The union officials "had no way of knowing whether the 8 June concessions then being requested were justified,"1 and hence the leadership of the union responded by requesting detailed financial information about all the company's operations. ALJ op. at 27 & n. 39. The company balked at the extensive request, stating that it was "so extensive as to be unreasonable both as to subject matter and volume...." ALJ op. at 31." * * * * * * "At the June 28 membership meeting, which was attended by over 2,000 people, the union leadership recommended that the company's wage freeze/profit sharing proposal be rejected until after the union had been afforded the opportunity to review the company's books. In the end, the membership agreed, voting overwhelmingly to deny the company the concessions it sought." * * * * * * "1 Because the company was a closely-held corporation about which the union had no information, the ALJ apparently accepted the genuineness of the union's need to obtain this information from the company directly. Moreover, the ALJ's discussion appears to be sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested, apparently accepting the union's position that "in order to intelligently determine its position with regard to the contract concessions then being demanded, the Union would require an overview of the Company's entire financial picture." ALJ op. at 29 ================================================================= Whether the union ever actually got to see the extensive books and records it requested turned on the outcome of an issue that was remanded back to a lower court, so I don't know if the union ultimately received the financial records it requested. The above excerpts make it clear, however, that the administrative law judge involved in the case was "sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested."

Because people who post and/or lurk here are widely geographically dispersed, if the lockout lasts long enough, you can find the "fat chick" at these locations across Canada: http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/canadian-football/canada/cfl/

Ivor Wynne is going to be rebuilt and expanded - - but still way, way too small for an NFL team. http://newscliptv.com/local/3175.html What I find interesting, though, is the extent to which city, provincial and federal government money will be used to fund the roughly $ 150 million project. If I am reading the article correctly, here's where the stadium rebuild money is coming from: Canadian federal gov't - - - $35.0 million Ontario provincial gov't - - $57.5 million Hamilton city gov't - - - - - $51.5 million New naming rights - - - - - $ 6.0 million Ti-cats team contributes - $ 3.0 million . Total $153.0 million The Ticats are only putting up slightly less than 2% of the cost of the project.

Nothing really surprising here - - my apologies if this was previously posted but my topic search got no hits on it. http://www.hackneypublications.com/sla/archive/001260.php "The impetus for the lawsuit was the decision of the New York Giants and the New York Jets to require season ticket holders to purchase personal seat licenses as a way to defray the cost of building a new stadium."

Solely for the sake of argument, let's say that you got this part right. In context, it's pretty clear that your post uses the word "Bills" to mean the team. To avoid confusion with the lease language (which defines the word differently), here's what you are saying: Ralph owns the team. He incorporated them as the Buffalo Bills, Inc. . . . Let's focus on how things stand at the instant in time immediately after the incorporation takes place. In my world, at that instant in time: 1. Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation, owns the team - - because when you incorporate a business, the corporation you just created then owns the business; and 2. Ralph owns the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - because when the sole owner of a business incorporates it, that person owns the shares of the corporation immediately after it is created - - the newly formed corporation in turn owns the business. These two results are entirely consistent with both the terms of the stadium lease, and with the idea that Ralph Wilson is the controlling shareholder of Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation that owns the team. If you don't see it that way, I guess I'll just have to decide whether to believe (a) what I read in a stadium lease involving Erie County, that is posted on an Erie County website, or (b) your description of how things work on Planet WEO. Tough call.

Again, but with emphasis on the key part: http://www.erie.gov/...e/stadium.phtml The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127." The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads: "WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ." =========================================== The above quoted phrase starting with "WHEREAS" uses the word "Bills," which is defined in the very first paragraph of the lease as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127." As a result, the "WHEREAS" clause reads, if you substitute the full definition for the short-hand term "Bills," as follows: ""WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127 are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Are you suggesting that whoever negotiated the stadium lease with Erie County misrepresented the identity of the owner of the team to the County?

I readily admit that I don't know much about comparative religions. I vaguely recall reading or hearing somewhere, though, that the "72 virgins" thing (or whatever the number is) is supposedly a reward not for all Muslims, or even for all devout Muslims, but only for Muslims who die as martyrs for their religious beliefs. As a result, the Muslim suicide bombers (admittedly not main stream Muslims) who kill innocent people believe that their reward, for what they see as martyrdom in the cause of Allah, will be the 72 virgin thing. As I said, I readily admit that I could easily be wrong about this. Anybody know if the "72 virgin" thing is limited to martyrs (as opposed to a feature of heaven for all Muslims)?

I realize that your ultimate conclusions are not dependent upon the above statement. The idea that an NFL franchise may not be owned by a corporation, however, is a common misperception that even appears in mainstream media articles about the NFL. Although commonly believed, it is factually incorrect. The NFL makes its governing "Constitution and Bylaws" (as amended through 2006) available here: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf Article III, section 3.3, at pages 6/292 through 7/292 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document, contains numerous provisions that would make no sense at all if a "member" (i.e., the owner of a franchise or club) could not be a corporation. For example: "3.3 (A) Each applicant for membership shall make a written application to the Commissioner. Such application shall describe the type of organization and shall designate the city in which the franchise of the applicant shall be located. Such application shall further describe and contain the following information: (1) The names and addresses of all persons who do or shall own any interest or stock in the applicant . . . (2) A detailed balance sheet of such company . . . A written financial statement shall be required from the applicant and from anyone owning an interest in any applicant, including stockholders and partners; (3) If applicant is a corporation, a certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and share certificate shall accompany such application . . ." =============================== The misperception about this may stem from Article 3.2, which reads, at page 5/292: "3.2 Any person, association, partnership, corporation or other entity of good repute organized for the purpose of operating a professional football club shall be eligible for membership, except: (A) No corporation, association, partnership, or other entity not operated for profit nor any charitable organization or entity not presently a member of the League shall be eligible for membership." ============================== The section 3.2(A) language prohibits nonprofit corporations from becoming members of the NFL, but it has no impact whatsoever on the eligibility for membership of for-profit corporations. The "not presently a member of the League" phrase is some of the language that "grandfathers" the pre-existing community-based ownership situation of the Green Bay Packers. Large publicly owned corporations, like the ones that trade on the stock exchanges, are prohibited from owning NFL franchises not because they are corporations, but because they have more than the maximum number of allowable shareholders as specified elsewhere in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document. So if you own a for-profit corporation with less than the maximum allowable number of shareholders, and you have one shareholder who owns at least 30% of the shares of the corporation (you can aggregate family shares to get to 30% in some situations), that corporation can own an NFL franchise. The Buffalo Bills franchise is owned by Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - a New York corporation for which Ralph Wilson is at least a 30% shareholder, and as far as anyone knows, the only shareholder. http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 Still don't believe it? Take a look at the first page of the Bills' stadium lease here: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127." The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads: "WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ." As the owner of the NFL franchise, Buffalo Bills, Inc. is a party in the Brady v. NFL lawsuit, as evidenced by the corporate disclosure statement filed with the 8th Circuit: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-1898/801649983/ Just like the Buffalo Bills, many (though not all) of the NFL clubs are in fact owned by corporations.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your interpretation of the contract language regarding payment is correct. If the current NFL appeal results, as expected, in an 8th Circuit opinion that allows the lockout to remain in effect, I think the owners have a way around the potential problem. I am not aware of any reason why a global settlement of all issues between the owners and players could not include: 1. recertification of the NFLPA as a union; 2. a new CBA entered into by the NFL and that newly recertified NFLPA; and 3. terms in the new CBA that specified that existing contracts would be modified so that 2011 payments to players would be paid on a pro rata basis, based on number of games in the 2011 season (e.g., if 8 games are played, which is 1/2 of the usual 16 game season, then only 1/2 of the salary otherwise owed gets paid). Per the existing contract language in bold above, the existing contract's terms can be modified in a new CBA in any fashion that the owners and a newly recertified NFLPA agree upon. Just my 2 cents, but I think this would be consistent with existing player contract language.

Merriman said he wasn't worried about the dangers of racing high-powered cars around foreign roads. "I'm not really bothered about that -- I'm up against 350-pound guys every day, I can deal with this," he said. "I would just say that I'd do anything to win, including letting down a few tires. Anything you got to do to win, that's all that matters." ================================================================= 1. I'm relieved to hear the change in attitude so that I don't have to worry about him failing future drug tests. 2. I guess physics isn't his strong suit. 3. Hope he stays clean and regains Pro Bowl form for us!