ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

If there really is at least some preliminary analysis or discussion of the Rogers Centre dig-down plan going on in Toronto, it ocurred to me that maybe the same Toronto councilman's comments about a potential new waterfront stadium might also be something more than just a fantasy. Although it's difficult to interpret what it means, I was a little surprised to find this reference to a "contemplated" new NFL stadium in "The Journal of Commmerce - - Western Canada's Construction Newspaper:" http://www.journalofcommerce.com/cgi-bin/project.pl?rm=show_top10_project&id=30b1c306828fe4ea80117667da32a87b1ae35029 "STADIUM Proj: 9135077-2 Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON CONTEMPLATED RL Hearn site, Portlands, M5V $50,000,000 est Note: This project is extremely preliminary. The tenant has a long-term lease for the site. How an architect will be secured is undetermined. Schedules for design, tender and construction have not been set. Further update winter 2011. Contact information for the Owner's Representative has been corrected. Waterfront Toronto is not involved in this project. Project: proposed construction of a NFL stadium on the site of the abandoned RL Hearn generating plant in the Portlands on Toronto's Waterfront. The project would include demolition of the existing building and reuse of some of the existing foundation. Development: New Category: Recreational bldgs Tenant The Cortel Group, 2800 Hwy 7 W Ste 301, Concord ON L4K 1W8, Phone: 905-695-0802 Fax: 905-695-0801; Joe Derocchis Owner's representative Ontario Power Generation Inc, 700 University Avenue, Toronto ON M5G 1X6, Phone: 416-592-2555 Fax: 416-592-4181; Ted Gruetzner First report Wed Apr 27, 2011. This report Wed May 04, 2011." =========================================================================== The site is a publicly owned but apparently abandoned power plant (the new Toronto soccer stadium was recently built on publicly owned land). The $50 million estimate is crazy-low for an NFL,stadium, which makes me wonder if this is just a "construction lead" posting of some sort - - kind of a "heads up" for people in the Canadian construction business about future potential projects they might want to track so they can later bid on them if they ever actually happen. It also seems odd that the info appears in a newspaper nominally targeted to Western Canada. I tried to see what I could find on the "Cortel Group" which is listed as having a "long-term" lease for the site. Turns out it is a real estate development company that has been involved in at least one Toronto condo project. I haven't done much digging on the developer, but I did find an article stating that its president in 2009 was Mario Cortellucci. Mario donated $2 million to the "Hunting and Fishing Heritage Centre" in Peterborough and is described as a philanthropist and entrepeneur. Don't know how wealthy he is. http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Honorary-Degree-Conferred-Upon-Mario-Cortellucci-1056040.htm It's just a guess at this point, but maybe ol' Mario tied up the power plant site with a long term lease at a cheap price, and upon hearing talk in Toronto about the possibility of a new stadium, pitched his site to the Toronto mayor and his councilman brother. If they want to use the site, they presumably would have to buy out his existing long term lease to free the site for stadium development. There has been speculation that Rogers Communications may have played a role in getting Doug Ford interested in the powerplant site for a new stadium: http://spacingtoronto.ca/2011/04/18/lorinc-let%E2%80%99s-play-ball-with-the-waterfront-again/ "It is interesting to note that on March 9, a team of three in-house lobbyists from Rogers — including the president of Rogers Media, the division that owns the company's sports properties -- paid a visit to Doug Ford, ostensibly to talk about cell phone towers. Now, as far as I know, city bureaucrats rubber-stamp cell phone tower applications, so it’s difficult to know why Rogers — which owns the Blue Jays and the Rogers Centre and is famously on the prowl for an NFL franchise — would need to dispatch a platoon of high-ranking arm-twisters to chat up Doug on such a quotidian matter. Perhaps something else came up in the course of a congenial conversation. Lo and behold, as my colleague Marcus Gee reported in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, Doug a month later has found himself musing publicly about the Hearn Generating Station as a venue for a NFL football stadium. He’s certainly not the first businessman to think about building such a facility on the portlands. Various schemes have surfaced over the years, including a smelly gambit by the former city agency TEDCO to extend grocery magnet Steve Stavros’ lease on a large chunk of waterfront real estate that looked to be a potential stadium site (the secret deal was later nixed). Tactically, then, the Fords’ conspicuously public aspersions about WT may in fact be aimed at prompting the other two shareholders to crack open the agency’s plans so they can re-arrange the long-range capital budget and cancel the sorts of investments the Fords don’t care for. After all, an NFL stadium certainly won’t get built without a generous dollop of gravy from the public sector, and it seems as if Doug’s had some ideas on where the city can find those dollars." ============================================================== The connection between the March 9th meeting and the powerplant site seems pretty thin. Maybe the March 9th meeting was about the dig-down plan instead? Hard to know, but it sure seems like there is a lot of NFL stadium-related talk in Toronto these days. Finally, the "Steve Stavros" mentioned above was at one time the majority owner of MLSE, but apparently sold his majority stake to the Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Stavro

The Bucs are closing their offices for the week of Memorial Day. If no regular season games are missed the employees will be retroactively paid, making it in effect an extra week of paid vacation. If any regular season games are missed, it will remain an unpaid 1 week furlough. http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/1000074113 The Detroit Lions have already imposed a two week unpaid furlough on their employees: http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/nfp-7a37ac5ce4be3b1cd58300c6e15f9c8e

17 Redskins assistant coaches say they back their owner rather than the players, and were not consulted about the brief: http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/1000074115 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/26/redskins-coaches-statement-sets-back-coaches-cause/ I suppose if Daniel Snyder signed my paycheck I might feel pressured to disavow the brief, too. Weird dynamic at work here.

1. Does anybody know if the veteran players who are already under contract for the next season get to keep their playbooks during the offseason? Or are they required to turn them in? I don't know how strictly the Bills control access to their playbooks. 2. The Phish coaches also did not send out playbooks to their players during the brief window when the lockout was lifted and teams had the opportunity to do so. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/03/sparano-says-dolphins-didnt-distribute-playbooks/ 3. The 49ers distributed a playbook at least to their veteran QB (even though he is an unsigned free agent): http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2011/05/playbook-in-han.html 4. I'm glad to see the team working out together - - it's got to be a good thing. But if we're trying to figure out whether it's giving us a competitive advantage, I would want to know which teams sent out playbooks during the window of opportunity and which ones didn't. Having a smart QB like Fitz and expecting only fine-tuning of the offense may soften the impact, but I'd sure feel better if our players had a playbook to use at their informal workouts. 5. Obviously, any teams planning to install new systems would have a greater need to distribute playbooks early as compared to teams that are simply planning to do some fine-tuning. FWIW, this article says there are going to be 23 new "coordinators" in the NFL this season (assuming there is a season): http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81fad5b6/printable/rookies-getting-playbooks-without-coaching-is-not-much-help

My entire family don't care much for Bella Chick. My brother Darryl says, however, that unlike some of the Bills' past coaches (emphasis on past) - - - "If Bella Chick fell in a bucket of t*ts, he wouldn't come out suckin' his thumb."

I'm kinda hopin' there is a little truth to it - - - they just got a few of the details wrong . . . http://bp2.blogger.com/_o4jqapDeMEI/Rgi3gCMQtSI/AAAAAAAAAOY/79CFOTVCKhs/s1600-h/NunsGuns.jpg

If you insist ....

1. Thanks for sharing - - the Internet is a great resource for finding info but sometimes there's no substitute for actually talking to someone (regardless of whether it's the SkyDome architect or some other knowledgeable source). 2. You previously said "there is no reason to believe Canadian or Ontario taxpayers will pony up a large chunk of cash for a new stadium. a large amount is going to have to come from private sources." At this point, it looks like I'm not going to get an answer about whether that statement was (a) stating your own opinion or (b) paraphrasing what a source knowledgeable about the Bills In Toronto deal told you shortly after the deal was made. But it isn't your credibility I'm concerned about - -it's the credibility of your source(s). I can think of lots of reasons why the Toronto people would want to sandbag a WNY reporter by downplaying their ability to eventually buy the Bills' franchise (with or without an existing option to buy or right of first refusal to buy). Your underestimate of Larry Tanenbaum's wealth makes me wonder if your source(s) sandbagged you. I would consider it further evidence that you were being sandbagged if somebody on the Toronto side of the Bills In Toronto Series deal told you around 2007 or early 2008 that "there is no reason to believe Canadian or Ontario taxpayers will pony up a large chunk of cash for a new stadium. a large amount is going to have to come from private sources." Why? Take a look at this September 21, 2006 report: http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/sports/122933-new-soccer-stadium-mlse-profits-taxpayers-get-screwed.html "While crews work to fill out the aluminum skeleton of the new soccer stadium at the CNE, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment acknowledges it has already made money from the taxpayer-subsidized venture. Yesterday MLSE announced that the Bank of Montreal (BMO) has bought naming rights to the stadium for the next 10 years. Now known as BMO (pronounced "bee-mo") Field, the 20,000-seat stadium will host Toronto FC of Major League Soccer, as well as several 2007 under-20 World Cup games next spring. Last year the federal government pledged $27 million to the project, while the provincial government added $8 million and the City of Toronto provided $9.8 million and the land the stadium stands on. MLSE, which owns Toronto FC, promised to pay the remaining $18 million for the project, with up to $10 million of that cash coming from the sale of naming rights.After a press conference yesterday to announce the deal, MLSE executive vice-president and chief operating officer Tom Anselmi wouldn't place a dollar value on the deal. "It's a private matter between two private parties," he said. Last month the Star reported that the 10-year naming rights deal between BMO and MLSE would be worth $27 million." ================================================================================ Regardless of what the political climate is like in Toronto now for building a stadium (more on that later), the people involved on the Toronto end of the deal with the Bills must have known in 2007/2008 about how little private money was being used to build the new Toronto soccer stadium, and how quickly that private money would be recouped in the naming rights deal. Now admittedly building a new NFL stadium would be a far more ambitious and expensive project, but the way in which the roughly $60 million soccer stadium was being publicly funded must have warmed the hearts of Ted Rogers and Larry Tanenbaum.

A lot of my most recent posts in this thread mention Tanenbaum because there seemed to be a difference of opinion about what he was worth, and that resulted in some discussion directed to that specific topic. My OP suggested that if the Toronto businessmen involved in the Bills In Toronto Series deal received an option to buy or a right of first refusal to buy the Buffalo Bills franchise as part of that deal, such result would not be inconsistent with any public statements Ralph has made since then (as far as I know). My OP mentions Tanenbaum as one of the businessmen involved in the Toronto side of the deal, but it's hard to figure out exactly what business entity or entities the Toronto businessmen may have formed or used for the purpose of reaching their business objectives. The media reports about the deal frequently mention Ted Rogers and Larry Tanenbaum, but that doesn't mean that either of those two men signed a Bills In Toronto Series contract that personally obligated them to do anything in their individual capacity. The media reports also mention Rogers Communications, Inc., the company that Ted Rogers controlled. That doesn't rule out the possibility, however, that one or more other business entities were parties to whatever final contract documents resulted from the negotiations. Likewise, the media reports about the deal frequently mention Ralph Wilson, but that doesn't mean that Ralph Wilson signed a contract in his individual capacity that obligated him to personally do anything. You wouldn't know it from reading any of the media reports about the deal, but it is almost certain that the business entity on the Buffalo side of the deal was Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - because that is the legal entity that actually owns the Buffalo Bills franchise. Ralph Wilson is commonly referred to as the "owner" of the Buffalo Bills because he is at least the controlling shareholder, and as far as we know the only shareholder, of Buffalo Bills, Inc. You are correct that in order for Tanenbaum (or more specifically a business entity that Tanenbaum owns and controls) to buy the Buffalo Bills franchise, a full 100% of the purchase price has to be put together somehow. I can't give you specific names identifying who might contribute the other 70%. What I can tell you, as explained at length in my post # 62 above, is that the Toronto Sun is more likely than anybody posting here to have an informed opinion about whether Tanenbaum has the financial ability and connections to assemble a group that would have the capability of making the purchase. I'm sure that Tanenbaum, through some business entity he controls, would prefer to put up at least 51% of any future purchase price if he could, so that he would be assured of being able to control the franchise in the future. The Toronto Sun never opined about Tanenbaum's ability to purchase the Bills - - but they did suggest that he has the ability to put together a package to buy MLSE. Forbes is a pretty respected source of financial information, and Forbes estimates that MLSE is worth more than the Buffaalo Bills NFL franchise. That makes it pretty easy to conclude that if somebody buys Tanenbaum's existing stake in MLSE, Tanenbaum is likely to have the resources and connections to assemble a group to buy the Buffalo Bills, even if he needed the help of other investors to come up with the full 100% purchase price. I'm no expert at Canadian politics, so I'm not sure how much weight to give this, but it was reported in November, 2005 that Tanenbaum once had some sort of fund raising responsibilities for one of the Canadian political parties. http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=04aa03e3-e25c-4724-8017-71d70c3b93b0&p=1 "Yesterday, Mr. Harper released an invitation from the Liberal party's National Revenue Chairman, Lawrence Tanenbaum, offering a private audience with the Prime Minister for donations of $5,100 per person, the most that political parties can collect from individuals under election financing laws." I'm not absolutely certain it's the same Tanenbaum but it seems likely - - I haven't tried to pin it down because the Toronto Sun/Forbes analysis is good enough for me - - I could be wrong. Maybe one of our Canadian posters could confirm that it's the same guy? P.S. Even if you think my ideas are nuts about the possibility of an option or right of first refusal to buy the Bills being granted in the existing Toronto deal, you might still be interested in Tanenbaum's capabilities. Even if there's no existing option or right of first refusal in place, Tanenbaum is one of the potential bidders if the Bills are sold by Ralph's estate after his death.

If I knew anybody who was trying to figure out if the Rogers Centre could be expanded, or if the looney Councilman's "dig down" theory made any sense, I might suggest that such person contact this guy: http://rod-robbie.co.tv/ "Roderick George Robbie, OC (born 1928) is a Canadian architect. He is known for his design of the Canada Pavilion at Expo 67 and Toronto's Rogers Centre. Born in Poole, England, Rod Robbie is the Chairman Emeritus of Robbie Young + Wright / IBI Group Architects and was Partner-in-Charge on most of the firm’s largest and most complex projects. He has achieved recognition as a result of his role as Architect of the Toronto SkyDome. He has considerable expertise in programming, and systems architecture combined with a detailed technical and practical understanding of high performance industrial and laboratory facilities. In 2003, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada as "an architect known for his innovation". http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=8007 In 1989, he was made a Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada." ================================ I won't burden this thread with ALL the info about him from the above link, but at 82 or 83 he's a widower who probably has retired by now with no one to talk to, and if he's still as sharp as Ralph was at that age, I bet somebody could charm ol' Roderick into talkin' about the good old days (including British Army service in Egypt), slip in a few questions about how the Rogers Centre could be expanded, and get some useful information. Just sayin'

I suppose that is when the young guys who aren't really in the gang yet (you know, like the draft picks, undrafted free agents and DEs who can't even contribute on special teams) have to commit their crimes, or the veteran gangsters will make the new guys carry their weapons to the 84 Olds Cutlass for the road portion of the regular season crime schedule. And if the young guys get caught, they go from worrying about a lock-out, to worrying about a lock-in.

As Mickey pointed out, the reference to losing a season not being an option may have nothing to do with scheduling issues. Instead, it may reflect the fact that some teams still have debt service payments that will make it difficult for them to financially survive an entire season without game-related revenue (be it gate receipts or TV money). The owners negotiated with broadcasters to get payments even if the 2011 season was delayed or canceled, but Judge Doty in MN found that doing so breached the owners' contractual CBA obligations to the NFLPA. Unless there is some reason to think that the teams with the greatest debt took other financial measures to prepare for the current lockout, those teams will again be under pressure to meet player demands, just like they were in 2006. Of course, as pointed out in other threads, many players are often not very good at managing their money, and will also feel financial pain when they start missing game checks. So in some respects, it boils down to a question of which side can withstand the financial pain of missing game-related revenue the longest. Here's what the USA Today reported back in 2006, shortly after the CBA was approved by the other owners over Ralph Wilson's dissenting vote: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-28-nfl-tech_x.htm "This new deal is worse than the one we had," said Wilson, not attending the owners meetings in Orlando this week. "You want labor peace, but you also want a fair deal." Wilson believes club costs were not reflected enough in the CBA and that some peers were forced into a resolution because of significant debt. Although the previous CBA would not have expired until 2008, ramifications including an uncapped 2007 campaign would have been triggered if a new CBA wasn't done before the 2006 fiscal year began. "The owners panicked," Wilson said. "They were afraid there might be a work stoppage. But we would've had 12 months to sit down and work a better deal out. With this deal, there's going to be half the clubs under water." =============================================== Based on Forbes' estimates, it appears that Ralph's prediction of "half" the clubs being under water may have been wrong. But there's no reason to think he was mistaken about the impact of "significant" club debt on the owners' negotiating position.

Actually, I thought Direhard's post was a nice blend of your Animal House reference and Peter Finch's Oscar-winning Network speech.

I suggest going to the window . . .

Made me curious so I decided to take a look around. See the far right column at page 3/6 of this: http://www.alumni.virginia.edu/multimedia/aig/sta/Hall_Spring11.pdf He apparently worked as an intern for the House Budget Committee through April 15, 2011. And at some point (in 2010?), he gave a speech to teachers at the Holiday Inn in Charleston, West Virginia. From http://www.centerforpolitics.org/news.html : "CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA – The University of Virginia Center for Politics’ Youth Leadership Initiative is hosting a statewide civic education workshop for West Virginia teachers in Charleston, WV on Thursday, August 12. The event is being held with the support of a $90,000 grant awarded by the Comcast Foundation to the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Thursday’s events will take place at the Holiday Inn Charleston House from 9 AM to 3 PM with a keynote speech by Governor Joe Manchin III at 9:30 AM and a check presentation ceremony at 10:45 AM. Other speakers will include Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, retired NFL player Brad Butler, and Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato. “We are grateful to Comcast for its generous contribution,” said Sabato, “The Comcast Foundation grant will help us to educate even more young people about the importance of civic engagement and becoming active in the political process.” ============================ Kinda surprised there wasn't more.

1. Let me start by saying that I've read a few of your articles and enjoyed them. If we were talking about the relative advantages of the 4-3 versus the 3-4 defense, or where the QB's hot read is when the nickel corner blitzes from the slot, or the way in which the QB adjusts O-line protection schemes at the line of scrimmage, I would tend to give your statements and opinions a lot of deference. What we are discusssing here, however, is a business deal among billionaires where the business in question just happens to involve football. I am not being disrespectful when I say that billionaire business deals aren't in the wheelhouse of the typical sportswriter. I wouldn't expect them to be. Although it's certainly possible, most people who invest the time and effort to get an MBA, or learn about business as entrepeneurs running their own companies, don't become sports journalists. Maybe you're the exception, but at present I have no reason to think so. Because I'm just an anonymous voice on the Internet, you have no way of knowing if I even have a wheelhouse, much less where it might be. I've never claimed to have one. 2. It appears, however, that we both have an interest in figuring out what might happen to the Buffalo Bills franchise after Ralph Wilson passes. My interest is evidenced by this thread - - yours is evidenced by (1) the fact that you are bothering to post here, and (2) your October 12, 2010 statements on WGR, as reported here: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2010/10/12/1746725/wawrow-speculates-on-possible-bills-succession-plan "From what I've heard in the background, and seen happening - without saying anything definitively, because I can't, because no one's actually told me anything - I have a better feeling that this team might be here longer, beyond Ralph Wilson, for a long time," Wawrow said. "I can't say that with certainty, but I get the sense there's work going on in the background that will make the transition easier. I can't really get into specifics, because I can't pin down the facts." * * * * * "Wawrow admitted to Simon that the possibility will always exist that the team is sold and moved once Wilson - who turns 92 this Sunday - passes away. "I'm not saying this is a guarantee," Wawrow continued. "I'm probably at maybe 65-70, 30-35 in thinking the Bills are staying here." * * * * * " . . . I know the NFL wants a market in this region - and I'm speaking to the Toronto/Buffalo corridor . . ." 3. When you scoffed above in this thread at the notion that Toronto businessman Larry Tanenbaum had sufficient money to buy a controlling interest in an NFL franchise, and stated that he might be able to do so if he won the lottery twice, I bit my tongue. Rather than criticizing your opinion or flaming you, I provided you with a relatively detailed analysis, based on facts supported by links to things like the NFL Constitution & Bylaws, Forbes magazine and a Toronto newspaper, showing that your opinion seemed to be incorrect. 4. Because you "have spoken . . . to people on both sides of the border" about the Bills In Toronto Series, it is sometimes difficult to tell if your comments in this thread are your own opinions as a sportswriter, or if you are simply paraphrasing what your presumably knowledgeable sources actually said. For example, on the stadium financing issue, you said: "as for your stadium stuff, there is no reason to believe Canadian or Ontario taxpayers will pony up a large chunk of cash for a new stadium. a large amount is going to have to come from private sources." 5. I would expect a Toronto businessman to have a reasonable basis for predicting what Canadian or Ontario taxpayers might do. I'm not asking you to give me a specific name, but is that statement (a) your own opinion as a sportswriter, or (b) paraphrasing what a source knowledgeable about the Bills In Toronto deal told you shortly after the deal was made? I'd really like to know which, so I can better evaluate the credibility of that statement. Thanks. And I do enjoy most of your articles - - I think they're generally well-written and informative.

I disagree - - we'd have a better gene pool if you had kids. 60 Minutes did an interesting piece on the phenomenon you described - - here's the video: http://youdontknowish.tumblr.com/post/4996877109/viral-vid-of-the-day-60-minutes-segment-the-age

This is a REALLY funny thread overall, but this post made me stop and think. This means that Ralph may have actually met someone who was born into slavery, and yet he has lived long enough to see Obama get elected. As you point out - - it may not be likely BECAUSE HE'S SO OLD HE CAN'T SEE THE TV OR HEAR THE RADIO ANYMORE, but it's possible.

Not commenting on the logic of the rest of your post, but I think this particular statement is incorrect. The recently expired CBA is publicly available, and contains a sample player contract. See Article XIV, section 1, at page 40/301 of the CBA here: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf "Section 1. Form: The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix C will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended without the approval of the Management Council and the NFLPA." The sample contract attached as Exhibit C in turn reads, at page 200/301 of the CBA "Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored by the League unless the game is first approved by the League. * * * * Without prior written consent of the Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football otherwise than for Club . . . * * * * Player ... agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club"

I'm late to the party again and didn't bring beer. Even my middle brother Darryl thought the OP's idea wasn't very sensible, but he did point out that there's this really old fella in Michigan . . . . .

My brother Darryl used to say - - "Well, if it's got t*ts or tires, you're gonna have trouble with it."

Since y'all are already talking about an aspect of the third point anyway, let's start there. I tend to agree with you that this may be true today, but don't you think the situation might have been different back when the Bills In Toronto Series was being negotiated? That's the more relevant time frame for what we are discussing, because we're trying to figure out what terms the various parties might have bargained for when making the deal.

If the Big 10 has its way, it will get worse. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134 " Big Ten officials discussed a proposal that would pay athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's spring meetings this week. The idea, which is backed by current NCAA president Mark Emmert and was favored by late NCAA president Myles Brand, is to bridge the gap between what athletic scholarships pay and other expenses like transportation and clothing. That difference has been estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000 per player. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said league athletic directors and officials have seriously discussed whether they should use some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more."

If you ever start a new job, pay attention to what the HR department asks you to sign - - it's possible they will ask you to sign something that gives them the right to do, without even telling you, exactly what you find so Un-American. From http://credit.about.com/od/creditreportscoring/tp/who-checks-credit-report.htm "Potential employers use your credit report to make hiring decisions. Your current employer might also review your credit report before giving you a raise or promotion. Bankruptcy, account delinquencies, and high debt levels could keep you from getting a job or from getting a raise or promotion." It appears however, that the employer does need to have your permission: From http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/employer-credit-checks.html "Can an Employer Check My Personal Credit Report? The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires credit bureau agencies to share a person's credit history with any party who has a legitimate business need for the information. Generally, employers qualify under the federal law and are allowed access to such information for purposes of deciding whether to hire, promote or terminate an employee. Does the Employer Need My Permission before Running a Credit Check? Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, an employer must have your permission before obtaining your credit report. The document that you sign giving the employer permission to run a credit report must be its own separate document; it cannot be a paragraph that is part of a larger job application form or employment contract. If a potential employer refuses to hire you based at least in part on an item in your credit report, the law requires that the employer give you a copy of the report along with the contact information of the credit bureau that issued the report and written instructions on how to challenge the accuracy of the credit report. Even though technically you have the right to refuse to give the employer permission to run a credit report, your refusal may raise the employer¿s suspicion and therefore give the employer reason to refuse to hire you, promote you or retain you as an employee."

1. According to a report by Forbes dated 8/25/10 the Buffalo Bills franchise, based on revenues and operating income for the 2009 season, is worth $799 million. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_DOV.html 2. According to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution & Bylaws (the most recent version that I have been able to find online), the minimum required equity interest for a controlling shareholder of an NFL club is 30%. See the preamble to "2004 Resolution FC-1A" at page 251/292 of the Constitution & Bylaws here: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf 3. Within the last 2 months, the Sporting News has reported that a controlling NFL owner's minimum allowable equity interest in the franchise remains at 30%. http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-03-29/nfl-business-dish-owners-discuss-easing-equity-rule-for-heirs 4. Thirty percent of $800 million = $240 million [no link, you'll just have to trust me] 5. Larry Tanenbaum's net worth has been reported as $970 million by "The 2010 Rich 100" list. I don't know the exact date upon which his net worth was estimated, but the "list" shows both his "2009 Ranking" and his "2008 Ranking," so it seems likely that the estimate of his net worth is based on 2009 figures. In any event, he is approximately the 60th richest person in Canada. http://list.canadianbusiness.com/rankings/rich100/2010/displayProfile.aspx?profile=61 6. On March 14, 2011, the Toronto Sun reported that Larry Tanenbaum already controls 20.5% of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment ("MLSE"), and has a first right of refusal to buy the rest. The Toronto Sun thinks he may have the money and connections to obtain a controlling 51% interest in MLSE if he chooses. http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2011/03/14/17615326.html 7. According to a Forbes journalist report dated May 12, 2011, a bidding war may be about to break out for MLSE, because the pension fund that currently owns the other roughly 80% of MLSE is exploring a sale. http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian/2011/05/12/maple-leaf-sports-and-entertainment-will-fetch-2-25-billion-sports-banker/ "A Canadian-based sports banker familiar with the discussions on the sale of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund says it is highly likely that either Bell Canada Enterprises or Rogers Communications will eventually pay $2.25 billion for MLS&E. This person spoke on the condition of because of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose information on the talks." "Although $2.25 billion seems way too rich, the purchase of the Montreal Canadiens by Geoffrey Molson in 2009 for $575 million showed the premium being applied to hockey teams in Canada for their programming could push the value of MLSE well above $1 billion." 8. Let's be conservative and say MLSE sells for only $1 billion. Tanenbaum's 20.5% stake in MLSE alone will gross $205 million dollars (admittedly before taxes). Personally, I hope he does exercise his existing right-of-first-refusal to buy MLSE, because if he does that, he'll have less cash to throw at the Buffalo Bills franchise. 9. If the Toronto press, which presumably has better sources than even you in this matter, thinks that Tanenbaum has the money and connections to obtain a 51% controlling interest in MLSE, which Forbes thinks is worth around $1 billion, I don't understand why Tanenbaum would not have the resources to obtain a 30% stake (all that the NFL requires of a controlling owner) in the Buffalo Bills franchise, which Forbes estimates to be worth less. 10. I don't know if he is still involved in the Bills In Toronto Series or not. Is the same source (Phil Lind?) telling you that (1) Tanenbaum doesn't have the resources and connections to buy the Buffalo franchise, and (2) Tanenbaum was only a minor player in the Bills In Toronto Series who may no longer even be involved? If so, that source may have an agenda, and you might want to independently confirm the info you're getting if you can. 11. Tanenbaum thinks long term. If you still think that he doesn't have the resouces to swing buying an NFL franchise and getting a Toronto stadium built, why does he have to do it simultaneously? What's to prevent him from buying an NFL franchise, and then operating it in place while he continues to seek a new stadium in Toronto? He would be in a much better position to seek stadium approvals if he already owned a franchise. 12. I am still planning to address the three points from your first post in this thread, but it may take a little while before I can get to it. Anyway, just my 2 cents.