GA BILLS FAN

Our perception of a rational bid is based on a proper financial evaluation of the cash flows from the team over a defined period. If a super rich person wants something, it's completely rational to pay what it takes to get it. Case in point Ballmer's bid on Clippers. He wants to own NBA team, he pays whatever it takes to get one. It's a commodity that is extraordinarily scarce, no different than the prices some pieces of art sell for.

I want a new stadium (in downtown Buffalo), don't get me wrong. What I want is the new owner who has no interest in moving the team to drive the process -- right now, it seems more like the NFL is trying to create a shotgun wedding and force the issue to be finalized as part of the sale ---

I don't -- why would Pegula, Jacobs or Golisano require assurances on the stadium up front before they bid ? I trust these guys, and I'll throw Trump in, are perfectly capable of negotiating a deal with state/local/NFL parties after the sale --- I think the requirement is nonsense for buyers with interest in keeping teams in Buffalo --- like I said, maybe those guys think they have more leverage to negotiate ahead of a bid -- but, let's face it, the bids will be due within the next few months and I don't see state/local authorities being ready to say they'll pitch in $400M -- on the NFL side, the financial support is pretty clear for new stadiums ---

NFL is getting too controlling -- I get why they'd like a stadium to be part of sale process, in my opinion it doesn't mesh with reported timeline --- I also don't see how NFL could not approve Pegula (or other local buyer) who has successful $1B+ bid even if they don't have new stadium figured out --- it would be PR disaster and worse than selling to an LA party -- can you imagine Pegula bids $1.2B, trust accepts bid and owners say we want a new stadium and a local owner --- I don't see that happening --- to me, it's up to the owner to decide what stadium he wants and at what cost and let him negotiate with local/state -- now, that owner might decide it's better to leverage a deal now, before a sale is finalized, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite

Great post and compelling argument, however, I would disagree on one point, your last one. The public believing and having as youcall it "religious fervency" does matter. Why ? Because it creates energy, a buzz and strong public awareness. Part of a politician's job is to SELL the community, but also to sell those outside a community or their area. Creating strong PR for Buffalo or WNY will attract other businesses outside the area into WNY, and that, while a net zero to the country as a whole is a net positive to WNY. The other phenomenon that I'd like to raise is the reality of the concept of a "tipping point", it does exist, but is difficult to determine, by that measure what I mean is that smart money follows the first mover money, so as investments in Buffalo continue,while subsidized at the start, will eventually require less and less subsidy. There are no guarantees this will work, but, government has an obligation to try, in a responsible way to make it work. At this time, I think what Buffalo is doing is responsible, while I'm not sure it will work (as you point out), I think it's an effort that has merits.

Yolo, I read the same tweet and listened to same reports and I don't get it either ? --- a lot of NFL stadiums are not owned or operated by the team's owner --- sometimes the team owner owns and/or operates the stadium, but in many cases it's neither -- (edit): BTW, if Pegula buys team, I don't believe he's under any obligation to have a specific new stadium plan to get approval, nor is any owner at this stage -- so, all of his could be worked out post-sale

I actually agree with you --- I think if EJ can play above the bottom 1/3rd we have a good chance to make playoffs --- I think defense will be Top 10 and I think running game could be Top 10 -- that should be enough to win 10

Agree on Foles and Smith, but Rivers had a bad year in 2012, so he slipped in some minds, but is generally considered a top 16 QB by most --- I should have said, "you need a QB that performs in the top half of the league to have a legitimate chance to get to the playoffs" -- it's unusual to get to playoffs without that type of play from your QB -- if you do, you have a GREAT defense and/or GREAT running game -- or a lot of luck ---

Great news ! Pegula has two GREAT qualities for an owner -- (1) Will keep team in WNY and (2) Will provide optimal financial resources to the team ---

The fact we ALL are honestly debating whether we have the WORST, 2nd from worst or even 9th from worst QB situation in the NFL is a travesty!!! ---- we need to have that position in the top 16 to have ANY chance of making it to the playoffs --- just look at last year's playoff teams and their QB's --- NE (Brady), Balt (Flacco), Indy (Luck), KC (A Smith), Den (peyton), Cincy (Dalton), Sea (R Wilson), Car (Newton, NO (Brees), Philly (Foles), GB (Rodgers), SF (Kaepernick)!!! -- all those teams had QB's that are considered in the TOP HALF of the NFL !! --- we are debating which portion of the bottom 1/4 our guys are in, that's ridiculous -- PLAYOFFS ? --- come on -- it's travesty that this position wasn't upgraded in the off-season --- yet, polls on Buffalo Rumblings have Brandon and Whaley both over 80% fan approval, I don't get it

BOOORRRING ! What a snooze -- if not Bills was hoping for Pittsburgh or Giants since we are doing joint-camp with Pit and HoF with Giants

+1, this is not an issue in the least. The only issue with respect to Pegula is whether he has the personal interest in being an NFL owner.

I think the issue with Golisano was as much about FO infrastructure spending (i.e. scouting etc.) as it was resigning players

No thanks. Moved Pabst from Wisconsin to Los Angeles, I wouldn't trust this guy.

Got me -- agree :-)

QB is the most important position in NFL (maybe all of team sports) AND it is the weakest on the Bills roster -- that is crazy, especially in a win now mindset --- all eggs are in EJ's basket this year --- Lewis and Tuel are sub standard backups (at this stage in their development) --- one could argue we have the worst QB's in the NFL --- insane --- Time might prove that EJ is okay or better than average and that Tuel/Lewis are serviceable -- but, right now, based on their short careers, I can't think of a worse QB situation on another FL roster ?

I think Bills would offer some intrigue (new ownership), but assuming the NFL will need to mandate participation; Giants, Steelers and Bears offer much larger fan bases and qualify for a mandate since none made playoffs in past 2 years and none have new HC's --- I'd say, based on that, Bills would be longshot to get selected.

I don't think Browns were eligible in the first place, I thought no team with first year HC was allowed ?

Agree --- but it's even more outrageous that the national media isn't doing it.

While the non-relocation clause is clear to me, national media and some local media continue to write and report the lease incorrectly, they call it "cost of relocation", "buyout" and/or "penalty"; as though breaking the lease is an OPTION a new owner has -- I think that creates a TON of confusion with a lot of people --- hard to hear one thing on these threads and then read the opposite -

I read that as well, but, again, there isn't anything in those 2 conditions that would create an issue or harm to the trustees if it were made public, I still think there has to be more in the trust for the trustees to keep it a secret, or maybe as "mannc" pointed out, they are just kept confidential.

Let me offer another angle in this argument -- I've asked before, as have others, why hasn't the terms of the trust been made public ? The typical answer I get is that it isn't in the best interest of the trustees to share that information. Brandon recently said on GR, "I'm not at liberty to discuss it". So, if the trust simply said, "sell to the highest bidder"; why wouldn't that have been made public, there would be no harm in informing all bidders, come high or go home, would there ? So, MAYBE, the trust actually places some conditions that would indeed limit parties, i.e. conditions to keep team here or other factors. What I'm trying to get at is that a lot of the debate on this thread is a result of lack of knowledge of what the trust says or doesn't say. Maybe the secrecy of what's in it, lies in the fact that there is actually something in it that limits movement or relocation. Thoughts ? --

+1 and the lease are the two BIGGEST things helping keep the team local --- add to that a local buyer, politicians who will fight an owner that wants to move and give owner that wants to stay financial incentives --- add to that a supportive commish and at least 10 supportive owners and things look good ---

Toronto has always scared me more than L.A.; primarily because the way the NFL would view it, largely incremental, especially if it adds viewers in other Canadian cities. In addition, Toronto is close enough to Buffalo to ease the other NFL owner's conscious. I think we have to be honest with ourselves about a couple of things. First, if a new owner wants this team, he might be willing to spend stupid money to get it. In other words, while money is a deterrent to buying and relocating, it isn't full proof. Second, while the lease is iron clad (or let's assume it is); a new owner who is willing to do the first thing, would certainly be willing to fight in court the lease. Again, neither of these assure a new owner of anything. I think one important thing our politicians, especially Cuomo and Schumur could do is to openly and privately make sure Goodell understands that NY State will not go down without a bloody fight if the NFL approves an ownership group that wants to move team outside of WNY. It's important for Goodell to quietly politic with the other 31 owners to make sure they understand the stain such a legal battle would have on the "shield". Not sure if any lawyers out there know whether fans could put together a class-action suit if these events transpired ? I remain optimistic given the 4-member trust and the lease and local buyers already identifies (Golisano, Trump, hopefully others) that this is highly unlikely, but as one poster said, don't get complacent.

I'm hoping it's EJ, but I'll go with Gilmore