Rocky Landing

My opinion is that we should go for best offensive player on the board, at nine. Pretty much against trading up, unless it is dirt cheap- which it won't be. Hoping Jake Mathews is there at nine.

I'm sure that this has been said in this thread, already. but this is VERY GOOD NEWS. I believe that the sooner they are sold, the more likely it is that they will be staying. Logistically, lining up the ducks to move the team would be an enormous task, and much of that would have to be done before investors would make the purchase. I have little doubt that out-of-state prospects are number-crunching right now. An early sale would head that off.

I think there has been some misperception on how "forced" the new owner's hand will be. I think "incentive" will be a better approach.

I have no doubt that it was Ralph Wilson's desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I did not know that there was league resistance to the lease agreement. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel any better. My hope is that what RW was able to work into the lease will be enough to keep the team in Buffalo. As I have stated previously, my fear is that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder, the highest bidder will want the highest ROI, and the highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.

I assume that the executor of the estate is going to sell the team to the highest bidder, who meets the terms of the lease agreement.

I think that there has been some misinterpretation on the part of some posters that the Non Relocation Agreement states that the Bills can't sell to someone that they know is planning on moving the Bills. That simply isn't the case. They can't sell to someone who is planning to move the Bills during the Non Relocation Term. Some people think this is a deal-breaker, anyway. Who would want to buy a team that they can't move for seven years at the earliest? I think this is misguided reasoning. It could take two years just to secure ownership. In Los Angeles (where I live, and have been following the stadium situation fairly closely), the contract for building a new stadium hinges on there being a team to move there. Once there is a team, the stadium will be built. The most likely place for a LA stadium would be at a location called Farmer's Field. That contract is already pending with an extension likely to be signed this October. Should it be built, it will be a logistical nightmare and will take years. Seven years from now might just time out perfectly. Currently, most people consider the Rams the front-runners for a move to Los Angeles, with the Raiders in second. Jax, and SD are essentially out of the running. But, if people in Buffalo don't think that moving to LA isn't a distinct possibility, I would say they are wrong. There's a lot of money in LA, and I have no doubt that the owners of some of that money are looking at Buffalo right now.

This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term. Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.

I think the FJ/CJ duo has been a top three tandem for as long as the two of them have shared the field.

We should bring Incognito in to help keep Mike Williams in line.

What I fear most: The Bills will go to the highest bidder. The highest bidder will want the highest ROI they can get. The highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.

Pretty well answers my half-hearted, rhetorical question posted above- "Why not."

I know that this topic has been commented on in just about every thread in the last month, or more. But, I don't feel like I have seen an actual consensus on what our needs are. So, TWB, I challenge you: What are our top five player needs in order of importance, and WHY? Why seems especially important because I am hoping (and expecting) that most of you will have very strong opinions on the subject. I am also expecting (and hoping) that about 50% of your opinions will be malarkey. But, as with most threads, it should really only take a few sentences, or so, to figure out who is rational, who is full of a-word-the-mods-would-strike, and who should be locked up. And, no, I don't think those three classifications are mutually exclusive. But, the one thing that pretty much every single person posting on this sight (especially this time of year), has in common is: You're all football junkies!

At first blush, I thought, abso-frikkin-lutely NOT. But, then I got to thinking'... a) He'd be cheap. We'd get him for a song. b) We really DO need an LG. c) He'd be on his BESTEST behavior. d) He was a Dolphin. And they ARE our division rivals. e) He'd play with one helluva chip on his shoulder-- especially against said Dolphins. Why not?

So you know, I have lived in Los Angeles for 23 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and the negotiations for a Los Angeles NFL stadium have been hinging on the availability of an NFL franchise for a few years, now. Los Angeles has already signed a plan with AEG that includes renovations to Staples Center and the LA Convention Center and would build a new stadium at a site called Farmer's Field. The $1.4 billion contract includes $290mil in public financing. All of the public hurdles have been accomplished, and the only one remaining is the lack of an NFL team. The contract expires in October, and will likely be extended, and rewritten to start the Staples Center/Convention Center renovations without the Farmer's Field build, pending the availability of an NFL team. As it stands, the current favorite is the Rams, although, I fear that the recent availability of the Bills might move them up in the running. Indeed, the timing of the Non-Relocation Agreement might even time out perfectly for such a deal. Be that as it may, both the City of Los Angeles, and Roger Goodell and the NFL have expressed a commitment to getting an NFL team back in Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, ROI in a market like Los Angeles or Toronto is a lot higher than keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't know about Toronto, but in Los Angeles, a new stadium would be publicly funded, and if someone had a team to bring to LA, would be as good as built.

Actually, the economic impact of an NFL franchise is much greater than you are describing (especially for a small city like Buffalo), and goes far beyond "8 days a year." Besides the income generated by fan based activities, there are hundreds of jobs from coaches all the way down to janitors. Even a venue like RWS gets constant upgrades and maintenance which is largely paid for by the Bills-- plumbing contractors, carpenters, electricians, etc. A certain amount of the substantial television revenue gets reinvested locally. And, if there were a new stadium project, Buffalo would be looking at literally thousands of well-paying jobs. A substantial amount of the incomes from these jobs would be pumped right back into the local economy. A couple years ago, I was in Miami on business and was given a tour of the new Marlins stadium as it was being built, and the number of jobs that were created for that project was in the tens of thousands.

As there has been some confusion-- even in the press-- about what a new Bills owner may, or may not plan for the future of the Bills, I finally just went and found an online copy of the Non-Relocation Agreement and read it for myself. (Here is the link: http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf )Unfortunately, I think you are wrong regarding the building of a stadium to which the Bills would be relocated. Sections 3, and 4 deal with this issue. The agreement states that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." That phrase, "during the Non-Relocation Term" is reiterated several times in sections 3, and 4. Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term. That's how I read it.

Perhaps you didn't read the article. Not dead. Now, since you have asked me for published evidence of my assertions (which I certainly have), perhaps you could provide some evidence that the Bills current lease bars them from considering any future plans beyond the terms of the lease. And, regarding the budget, that is why I included the parenthetical "arguably."

California has just balanced its budget (arguably), and the money for an NFL stadium is already there.

I'm not sure how a lease could prevent an investment group from building a stadium in a different state, regardless of its intended purposes. Nor do I see how a lease could dictate the future intentions of an entity renting a space. I certainly haven't read the lease, but does it (or even could it) really dictate that the Bills cannot decide future plans beyond the terms of the lease until the lease is expired? That doesn't make any sense to me. Be that as it may: This article was actually posted today. ]http://www.ladowntow...19bb2963f4.html Considering the amount of time that it would take for AEG to bring in an NFL team, Farmer's Field may be a non-starter. A quote from the article: "Though AEG continues to pursue a stadium and a deal with the NFL, city officials recognize that they can no longer rely solely on that vision." Of course, the crux of this article is that the Farmer's Field portion of AEG's contract with the city of LA is due to expire, and the city would like to move on with the rest of it. But, I think that the city of LA is very much on board with the notion of building Farmer's Field. This is AEG's current website: http://www.farmersfield.com The strongest alternative to Farmer's Field is the City of Industry plan called "Grand Crossing." http://www.losangele...ballstadium.com It's really not as crazy as it sounds. The acreage, logistics, parking, area of SoCal it would serve, and traffic issues all make it a better choice. The one thing that the AEG/Farmer's Field plan has going for it is the gung-ho support of the city of Los Angeles. For the record: I am not predicting that the Bills are going to move to Los Angeles, and I would be very depressed if they did. I think that Both the Rams, and Raiders are more likely outcomes. But, I do think that it is a distinct possibility, and I also think that the timing of the lease agreement (assuming it doesn't contain the poison pill you suggest), and the Bills impending sale (which could easily be two years away) just might increase the odds of it happening.

This is delusional thinking. Their is a low chance Trump would move the team.

I absolutely agree with this. BOPA.

What'd I miss? Is something going our way?

Who knows? Maybe he'll operate the team at a loss and use it as a tax deduction.

I haven't read through this thread, so I'm sure I'm probably the fiftieth person to say this, but: I can't believe we're in a position where I'm hoping that Donald Trump buys the Bills. I think this is more true of investment groups that would be likely to move the Bills out of WNY. If a potential buyer is serious about keeping them in WNY (as the Donald says he is), then the press coverage would help the sale. In fact, I will guess that whoever buys the Bills (whether they plan to keep them in WNY or not) will express their desire to keep them in Buffalo-- right up until the time that they don't. I should stop posting on this subject. I'm getting to be a real downer.