ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Humor aside, let's talk about it. Serious question - - how much money do you think it takes to have a controlling interest in an NFL franchise?

Do you think Larry Tanenbaum has the money to have a controlling interest in an NFL franchise?

Sounds fair.

I would be happy to respond to any comments about a possible Bills ownership change or move in the other thread. I won't do so here, to you or anyone else. I really just thought this was an entertaining read.

I could be wrong, but didn't the 8th Circuit follow old but never overturned U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicating that "growing out of a labor dispute" (or whatever the exact Norris statutory language is) doesn't even require that there was ever a union at all? I have not gone back to read it a second time, but I seem to recall reading a citation to a US Supreme Court case to that effect in an NFL 8th Circuit brief.

I've been posting some of my thoughts about the Bills In Toronto Series deal in another thread, but found this article about Larry Tanenbaum (one of the Toronto businessmen involved in that deal) interesting enough to merit its own thread. No theories here, just an entertaining read about the guy: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/what-does-winning-look-like/article254797/page1/?service=mobile 1. After you open the link, be sure to click a second time on "Continue Reading" so that you can see the whole article. 2. As a rich Canadian kid attending Cornell University, he was an equipment manager for the NCAA champion Cornell hockey team.

Anderson Cooper: "Humility, thy name is Trump" Funny, satirical video from Anderson Cooper's "The RidicuList" series (after the startup commercial): http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/05/17/exp.ac.ridiculist.donald.trump.cnn

Thanks. I understand tax basis, but hadn't thought about how someone who recently became an owner wouldn't have much appreciation yet on which the capital gains tax from selling a 30% ownership stake would have to be paid. So back to trying to figure out which team Galatioto might have been referring to in the 2010 CNBC video, the most likely candidates might be owners who fit one or both of the following criteria (because any owner could be thinking about estate planning regardless of age, and Galatioto said that estate planning was one of the factors motivating the sale - not the only factor): 1. Relatively recently bought a franchise (based on the seemingly reasonable assumption that there has been fairly steady appreciation in team values over the years); and 2. Has a relatively greater need for cash now - - [maybe because the owner foresaw the lockout coming, has relatively high debt service that will still need to be paid even if the 2011 season gets delayed, and had the foresight to realize that the lockout fund created by renegotiating the TV contracts might not hold up to court scrutiny in MN? In that regard, Judge Doty found for the players in the TV lockout fund case in part because the NFL, in creating a lockout fund from TV revenues, put (1) its own interest in avoiding violations of some teams' loan covenants above (2) the league's contractual CBA obligation to maximize TV revenues for the JOINT benefit of the owners and the NFLPA.] Does that sound like a sensible way to narrow down the list of possible teams that Galatioto was talking about?

Thanks. I will assume this means that either (1) Phil Lind was not specific about why "no one at Rogers is currently in position to buy an NFL franchise," or (2) Phil Lind told you something off-the-record that you cannot ethically repeat. For my present purposes it doesn't matter which one it was. I am thinking about the 3 reasons you gave in your first post for why you believe my suggestion is "highly unlikely" and "vastly improbable." I want to check a few more facts before I respond to the three points you made there.

I've thought about this a little more. Your argument about avoiding double taxation is entirely logical, but it can't be 100% applicable to the partial ownership sale that Galatioto mentioned in the CNBC video clip. It's been a while since I watched the video (couldn't get it to load today), but I have a pretty clear recollection of him saying that the partial ownership sale was being done in part for estate planning purposes. The earlier TSW thread about the video reflects this. Think about it - - if your argument about avoiding double taxation always applied, when would anyone EVER sell a partial ownership interest in an NFL franchise as part of their estate planning process? It would always result in double taxation. Yet Galatioto said that estate planning was one of the reasons why the sale of a partial ownership interest was going to "launch." On the other hand, I'm not saying that the Galatioto sale involved the Bills. Ralph was already pretty old in the fall of 2010, and he's always been pretty sharp financially. What changed in 2010 that would have made him alter course (because it's reasonable to assume he already had a course), and belatedly sell 30%? On balance, I don't think we have enough information to draw many conclusions. I do appreciate, however, the OP's efforts to think things through, do some calculations, share his ideas with supportive links, and give us all something to think about. Just my 2 cents.

If we really don't have anybody else, how about Bryan Scott. Didn't he get pressed into emergency LB service a few years ago against the Jets and do pretty well? Obviously that gives up some run D ability, but we're talking about expected passing downs, and he's listed at 219.

Seems like reasonable goals for the most part - - a few minor things I'd quibble about: 1. I think Sheppard could turn out to be pretty good, and could be a defensive captain someday, but not this year. Not sure when defensive captains are picked, but if it's a one-time vote before the regiular season even starts, it's hard to see him being a captain this year. 2. Carrington seemed to be coming on pretty strong late last year - - I'd set his goals higher. If they keep Kyle Williams at NT as reported to be the plan, Carrington could see a lot more playing time this year. He supposedly has natural pass rush ability but was weaker against the run. With a full year of pro strength and conditioning, he ought to be stouter against the run, while hopefully the overall defense, unlike last year, can afford to bring in more pass rush ability even if it does weaken the run D a little bit. We couldn't afford that last season. And he might have more upside thsn Edwards. 3. Roscoe Parrish incurred a season-ending injury in the 8th game. If you pro-rate his 8 game stats to a full season, he was already playing at the level of 66 catches for 800 yards and 4 TDs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8469 I suppose you could say it would be a breakout year for him to just perform at the same level while staying healthy for a full season - -but I would set his goals higher than 900 yards with 5 TDs. Just my 2 cents.

Interesting analysis - - thanks for sharing your thoughts. FWIW, I've tried to Google Sal Galatioto about 30 times since posting the original CNBC video clip, but I've never been able to find anything else about the sale he was discussing. He did say during the interview, though, that most partial ownership sales are made quietly, or words to that effect.

1. $78 million dollars to spend on trying to get the Bills to the Super Bowl during his lifetime, after which he has not made any public promises that the Bills will remain in Buffalo anyway. 2. Toronto businessman Larry Tanenbaum doesn't think a right-of-first-refusal to buy a sports franchise is "weird." He already has one to buy a big chunk of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and it's expected that it will soon either (a) make him the primary owner of the Maple Leafs (he already owns about 20% through one of his companies), or (b) make him a richer man than he already is. http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2011/03/14/17615326.html "When Steve Stavro was controlling the show at the time of the Raptors-Leafs merger, Larry Tanenbaum waited and when the time was right, took control of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment. Now the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is exploring the idea of selling its controlling 66% with a price tag of $1.3 billion or more. Who is it going to be? Rogers? CTVglobemedia? Shaw? Jim Balsillie? "It could be any of them but none of it is going to happen with out Larry's approval because he not only has first right of refusal but, like he does with everything, he's been planning for this inevitability for years," said a source close to the story. Don't forget his main guy on the board is Dale Lastman and it was Dale with then-Sun Media president Paul Godfrey who put the original merger deal together on the sixth floor of the Sun building in 1998." ============================== P.S. Dale Lastman, Paul Godfrey and Larry Tanenbaum were all involved in structuring the Bills In Toronto Series deal. http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/10/larry-tanenbaum-and-ted-rogers.html

Did Phil Lind say why there is "no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise?" This seems to imply that there is a temporary problem that might be overcome by someone at Rogers in the future. Was he any more specific? I am trying to dig up some more information about the businessmen on the Toronto side of the Bills In Toronto Series deal, and any further detail you could provide about Phil Lind's comments would be helpful if you have time. Thanks.

To put it in the context of a situation that more people are familiar with - - you can sign a perfectly binding contract to buy a house conditioned upon (1) you being able to qualify for a mortgage that you have not yet even applied for, and (2) the house passing an inspection that hasn't been performed yet. If the buyer qualifies for the mortgage and the house passes inspection the deal goes through, money changes hands, and the buyer gets the keys. If the buyer can't get approved for the loan, or the inspection shows that the house is about to fall down, the deal doesn't go through, and the buyer never has to fork over the purchase price. The option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that the NFL might not approve the sale, just like the contract to buy a house can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that a future inspection reveals that it is about to fall down.

1. How did it become "my" dig down theory? My OP stated, with respect to the Toronto councilman who talked about "diggiing down:" "there are valid reasons to doubt his credibility" "I don't know how plausible "digging down" is" 2. What's to prevent the Toronto group from buying the franchise and continuing to operate it in Buffalo until they can get a better facility in Toronto? If they can never get a satisfactory stadium built in Toronto they keep the team in Buffalo - - but it would probably be easier for them to get stadium commitments from the local Toronto area elected officials if they already had control of a franchise. 3. I agree that the Toronto group would need to get approval from the existing NFL owners to buy the Bills, but they don't need that approval today in order to get the kind of option or right-of-first-refusal I'm talking about. IF such a deal was already made by Ralph, the Toronto group could also simply walk away and not exercise their rights if, upon Ralph's future death, they still don't have a stadium that meets NFL requirements.

Here's the link I already provided to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws in connection with fact #2 in my OP - - see the text of "1996 Resolution FC-6" (starting at page 169/292): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf If no team is owned by a corporation, how does the following text from "1996 Resolution FC-6" make any sense at all (the letters FC appear in the title of the resolution because it was an NFL Finance Committee resolution)? "Further Resoved, that if an NFL club is owned by a privately held corporation that has multiple classses of stock, one of which possesses full voting power and the others of which possess voting power only to the extent required by applicable corporate law, the principal and/or controlling owner shall only be required to have a 30% equity interest in the corporation if such principal and/or controlling owner owns all of the voting stock of the corporation and is not subject to contractual or other restrictions on his ability to vote such stock;" Buffalo Bills, Inc. (a New York corporation) owns the Buffalo Bills franchise (i.e., the team), and Ralph Wilson is the controlling owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc.

As promised in my original post: 1. The NFL clubs have recently made representations to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals about the actual legal owners of the teams: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-1898/801649983/ 2. The above document mentions Buffalo Bills, Inc. That happens to be a New York State corporation. Ralph Wilson is commonly referred to as the owner of the Bills because he owns the controlling interest in this corporation: 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

See the post immediately above.

Good one! But I already stated that I won't be using this as a comedy thread, so all I can do is laugh and not make alternative suggestions about where the contract might be.

In decreasing order of importance: 1. Ralph Wilson is a sharp guy. He knows that Bills fans (his customers) fervently want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Yet after he announces the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal, at a time when he must have expected to be asked how the deal would impact the team's future in Buffalo, he gave no long term assurances. If there is some sort of plan to keep the Bills in Buffalo, why not re-assure your customers by saying so? On the other hand, I can think of lots of reasons why Ralph would not want to publicize the grant of an option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy the team. These facts are far from proof that it happened, but it makes me wonder why it played out that way. From http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2008-02-06-toronto_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip "Ralph Wilson is convinced Toronto is ready to support an NFL franchise. The Buffalo Bills owner wouldn't say whether that team might one day be his. Wilson steered clear from discussing whether the Bills would ever relocate north of the border. "Don't worry right now," was the best answer he could provide at a news conference Wednesday announcing the Bills would begin playing an annual regular-season game in Toronto beginning this season through 2012." 2. There are strong indications that the Toronto group was actively seeking to outright buy a franchise before the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" was announced (fact #5 in the OP), and planned to continue their efforts to outright buy an NFL franchise after the deal was announced (fact #8 in the OP). They were in the process of making a deal with RW, an NFL owner who was already on record as saying that the team would be sold after his death, and it just so happens that Toronto is already in what the NFL Constitution and Bylaws define as the Bills "Home Territory." If the Toronto group eventually buys any team other than the Bills, they will have to pay a hefty relocation fee. And that's IF they can get 24 owners to amend the NFL Constitution so that RW can't exercise what amounts to an existing veto. But if they buy the Buffalo franchise, they can make a strong argument that the team in Toronto is still playing its games in the same "Home Territory." They would argue that having the Buffalo Bills play in the Rogers Center is no different (for purposes of a relocation fee) than having the Jets or Giants switch stadiums from NYC to New Jersey. Why should crossing an international border be different than crossing a state border? - - at least that's their argument. The absence of a relocation fee requirement makes the Buffalo franchise more valuable to the Toronto businessmen than any of the other 31 franchises (for the same purchase price). Some may scoff at this notion, but there is a baseball team already known as "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim." So why not "The Buffalo Bills of Toronto" if it saves the Toronto ownership a multi-million dollar relocation fee? I'd be shocked if the Toronto businessmen did not ask for some sort of option to buy the franchise or right-of-first-refusal to buy the franchise exercisable upon Ralph's death. They would'nt be committed to exercising those rights after RW's death - - if the Bills-In-Toronto Series turns out to be an abysmal failure, they simply walk away and don't exercise the option or right-of-first refusal. 3. At least with respect to a right-of-first-refusal, it doesn't negate the possibility of a post-death bidding war that maximizes the proceeds of selling the franchise for RW's estate. If the next Dan Snyder wants to make some crazy-high purchase offer to Ralph's estate for the Bills, that bidder can still buy the team if he offers a price that the Toronto people can't or won't match. This also preserves the possibility that a local ownership group buys the team - - because if they make a bid that the Toronto people can't or won't match, and nobody else bids higher, then the Buffalo group wins the bidding war. 4. The "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal expires at essentially the same time as the Bills' current stadium lease. In these circumstances, can you think of any reason why the Toronto entity wouldn't at least ASK for a right-of-first-refusal to buy the team exercisable on RW's death? I can't. What I can't predict is how RW would have responded, and his lack of any public assurance that he has made plans to keep the Bills in Buffalo makes me nervous. I'll grant you that none of this is proof - - but it seems to make a lot of potential business sense.

This is from a March 29, 2011 article published by The Sporting News - - "BiggieScooby" was kind enough to provide it in another thread: "The league at one time required the control owner to have 51 percent of the team. That percentage fell to 30 percent, and in 2004, the number was changed to 20 percent for family-owned teams, with the family needing to cumulatively stay at 30 percent. In the wake of the difficulties of the Pittsburgh Steelers’ keeping the team in the Rooney family, the control portion percentage in 2009 was dropped to 10 percent. For non-family situations, the control portion remains at 30 percent." http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-03-29/nfl-business-dish-owners-discuss-easing-equity-rule-for-heirs By the time of the Toronto deal, the requirement for a controiling owner to have 51% of the team had already changed. Although Ted Rogers got a lot of publicity, as I understand it the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal was not made with Ted Rogers individually, so IF an option to buy or right-of-first refusal was granted when the deal was made, it seems likely it would have been granted to the same business entity that signed the Toronto end of that deal. Just my 2 cents, could be wrong.

I have sometimes posted in other threads in attempts at humor. I wanted it to be clear that this wasn't one of those times.

300 Parkside Avenue is the address for the Buffalo Zoo. I just googled "striped ass ape" and based on a quick scan of the "hits" it appears that my interpretation is wrong and your initial usage of the term was correct after all. Maybe I've got an "Uncle-Brother Darryl" that my momma never told me about.