Did Ralph Already Grant Toronto An Option To Buy?

[HalftimeAdjustment]

It's NOT going to Toronto, the team is STAYING in Buffalo. The wheels are in motion and if I could provide more detail, I would. All I can do is tell you that for the first time EVER, there is progress....

 

Are you telling us that Ralph Wilson has been turned into an immortal vampire and therefore the team will never need to be sold?!? We've all been waiting for that day (except for Pegula fans).

[Pondslider]

Are you telling us that Ralph Wilson has been turned into an immortal vampire and therefore the team will never need to be sold?!? We've all been waiting for that day (except for Pegula fans).

 

He's a reverse vampire.

 

That's why the Bills don't get night games anymore.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Pondslider

[McBeane]

On a more serious note, if Baumer is correct, you'd have to believe that Pegula is somehow involved. I'll keep dreaming about it until proven otherwise!

[Campy]

If they can't stay in Bflo, I'd be all for them going to TO. After all, we have more in common with people from southern Ontario than people from southern California...

[McBeane]

If they can't stay in Bflo, I'd be all for them going to TO. After all, we have more in common with people from southern Ontario than people from southern California...

 

They go to Toronto and I'm done. Plain and simple.

[benderbender]

They go to Toronto and I'm done. Plain and simple.

 

 

RW cares too much for the city he wasn't born in to have the Bills leave town. He wouldn't spare any funds (aside from the 20 million+ of cap space) to improve the team and to re-sign the best players we drafted.

[GG]

So, to recap:

 

.. apparently Ralph Wilson signing a deal to play games in Toronto means that he's already prearranged to move the team there. Never mind that the deal is with Rogers Communications, which can't own an NFL team, and that the only person at Rogers who could afford to own the team is now dead, but did you know there is another guy who could buy the team, but he's not rich enough, but because he's Canadian he has an inside shot to buy the team, and then he'd have to demolish Rogers Centre (sic) which he doesn't own, but that's ok because that's how Canadians roll? And if you don't believe this theory, the OP will support his point by providing a transcript of the interview that YOU did proving the conspiracy, which you are obviously a part of.

 

Does that cover it?

[PromoTheRobot]

So, to recap:

 

.. apparently Ralph Wilson signing a deal to play games in Toronto means that he's already prearranged to move the team there. Never mind that the deal is with Rogers Communications, which can't own an NFL team, and that the only person at Rogers who could afford to own the team is now dead, but did you know there is another guy who could buy the team, but he's not rich enough, but because he's Canadian he has an inside shot to buy the team, and then he'd have to demolish Rogers Centre (sic) which he doesn't own, but that's ok because that's how Canadians roll? And if you don't believe this theory, the OP will support his point by providing a transcript of the interview that YOU did proving the conspiracy, which you are obviously a part of.

 

Does that cover it?

Why can't Rogers own an NFL team?

 

PTR

[GG]

Why can't Rogers own an NFL team?

 

PTR

 

They're a corporation that's listed on major stock exchanges. NFL bylaws prevent team ownership by public corporations (Green Bay excepted). With Ted Rogers passing, there is nobody at Rogers Communications who could personally afford the Bills, nor do I believe there is interest.

[AthensThunder]

Ya Sure,why not!!!!!!

Now will you go away?????

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Does that cover it?

If you've read enough of this thread to prepare that recap, you won't be surprised that the answer is no. There are a few things I'm still checking out, but here's what I know so far.

 

The idea that Ted Rogers individually directly owned the controlling shares of public company Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI") is a myth. In reality, at the time of his death, Ted Rogers owned the shares of a PRIVATE holding company (not publicly traded), and that private holding company in turn owned a majority of the shares of RCI.

 

That may not seem like a significant difference, but it is. The NFL Constitution & Bylaws prohibit publicly traded companies from owning an NFL franchise. So RCI could not own the Buffalo Bills. But closely held private corporations can and do own NFL franchises. The Buffalo Bills are already owned by one such private corporation.

 

The private holding company that Ted Rogers controlled was potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, so long as (1) one shareholder owned at least 30% of the private holding company's stock, and (2) the total number of shareholders of the private holding company did not exceed a certain number of people.

 

But Ted's dead, so why do we care? Here's why - - the NFL Constitution & Bylaws specifically provide that in certain situations, a trust can own an NFL franchise, just like a closely held private corporation can.

 

Well guess what? Upon his death, Ted Rogers' shares of the above-mentioned private holding company passed to something called the "Rogers Control Trust." Members of the late Mr. Rogers' family are beneficiaries of that trust.

 

Why does that matter? It matters because if there are a sufficiently limited number of beneficiaries, the Rogers Control Trust might still be able to meet the eligibility requirements for owning a NFL franchise.

 

Don't believe me? Here's the proof regarding how control of RCI changed upon Ted Rogers' death (most relevant portions bolded by me):

 

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2008/22/c3549.html

 

Voting Control of Rogers Group of Companies to be Held in Trust for Family

 

TORONTO, Dec. 22 /CNW/ - Prior to his death earlier this month, Edward S.

"Ted" Rogers controlled Rogers Communications Inc. ("RCI") through his

ownership of voting shares of a private holding company. RCI has been informed

that under Mr. Rogers' estate arrangements, those voting shares, and

consequently voting control of RCI and its subsidiaries, passed to the Rogers

Control Trust, a trust of which the trust company subsidiary of a Canadian

chartered bank is Trustee and members of the family of the late Mr. Rogers are

beneficiaries. Private Rogers family holding companies controlled by the

Rogers Control Trust together own approximately 90.9% of the Class A voting

shares of RCI and 7.5% of the Class B non voting shares.

 

The Rogers Control Trust holds voting control of the Rogers group of

companies for the benefit of successive generations of the Rogers family. The

governance structure of the Rogers Control Trust comprises the Control Trust

Chair (who acts in effect as the chief executive of the Control Trust), the

Control Trust Vice-Chair, the corporate trustee, and a committee of advisors

(the Advisory Committee). The Control Trust Chair will act as the

representative of the controlling shareholder in dealing with RCI on the

company's long-term strategy and direction, and vote the Class A voting shares

of RCI held by the private Rogers family holding companies in accordance with

the estate arrangements. The Control Trust Vice-Chair assists the Control

Trust Chair in the performance of his or her duties and both are accountable

to the Advisory Committee.

 

Currently, Edward Rogers is the Control Trust Chair and Melinda M. Rogers

is the Control Trust Vice-Chair. The Advisory Committee members are appointed

in accordance with the estate arrangements and include members of the Rogers

family, trustees of a Rogers family trust, and other individuals.

 

The Rogers Control Trust satisfies the Canadian ownership and control

requirements that apply to RCI and its regulated subsidiaries, and RCI will be

making all necessary filings relating to the Trust with the relevant Canadian

regulatory authorities in January 2009.

 

Point is, so long as the Rogers Control Trust has a sufficiently small number of beneficiaries, it's at least potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, and it won't matter that Ted Rogers died. The trust would need to be approved by the League office, so if RCI executives say that nobody connected with RCI is currently in position to buy an NFL team, that may technically be true. But if the Rogers Control Trust is interested in buying an NFL franchise, my guess is that they already have a pretty good idea about whether such approval could be obtained.

 

I will try to post the NFL Bylaw provision concerning team ownership by trusts in the near future, but it is lengthy, so it may take a while before I can do that.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[McBeane]

If you've read enough of this thread to prepare that recap, you won't be surprised that the answer is no. There are a few things I'm still checking out, but here's what I know so far.

 

The idea that Ted Rogers individually directly owned the controlling shares of public company Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI") is a myth. In reality, at the time of his death, Ted Rogers owned the shares of a PRIVATE holding company (not publicly traded), and that private holding company in turn owned a majority of the shares of RCI.

 

That may not seem like a significant difference, but it is. The NFL Constitution & Bylaws prohibit publicly traded companies from owning an NFL franchise. So RCI could not own the Buffalo Bills. But closely held private corporations can and do own NFL franchises. The Buffalo Bills are already owned by one such private corporation.

 

The private holding company that Ted Rogers controlled was potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, so long as (1) one shareholder owned at least 30% of the private holding company's stock, and (2) the total number of shareholders of the private holding company did not exceed a certain number of people.

 

But Ted's dead, so why do we care? Here's why - - the NFL Constitution & Bylaws specifically provide that in certain situations, a trust can own an NFL franchise, just like a closely held private corporation can.

 

Well guess what? Upon his death, Ted Rogers' shares of the above-mentioned private holding company passed to something called the "Rogers Control Trust." Members of the late Mr. Rogers' family are beneficiaries of that trust.

 

Why does that matter? It matters because if there are a sufficiently limited number of beneficiaries, the Rogers Control Trust might still be able to meet the eligibility requirements for owning a NFL franchise.

 

Don't believe me? Here's the proof regarding how control of RCI changed upon Ted Rogers' death (most relevant portions bolded by me):

 

http://www.newswire....8/22/c3549.html

 

 

 

Point is, so long as the Rogers Control Trust has a sufficiently small number of beneficiaries, it's at least potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, and it won't matter that Ted Rogers died. The trust would need to be approved by the League office, so if RCI executives say that nobody connected with RCI is currently in position to buy an NFL team, that may technically be true. But if the Rogers Control Trust is interested in buying an NFL franchise, my guess is that they already have a pretty good idea about whether such approval could be obtained.

 

I will try to post the NFL Bylaw provision concerning team ownership by trusts in the near future, but it is lengthy, so it may take a while before I can do that.

 

You are putting wayyyy too much effort into this...

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You are putting wayyyy too much effort into this...

Maybe so, but I can sleep when I'm dead.

[BuffaloBaumer]

Now you've done it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Honestly, the only reason I even mention it (without discussing details) is because it Ps me off that Bills fans are kept in the dark as to the future of the team. I truly look forward to the day when I am able to discuss.....Be happy people and allow yourselves to be excited (about the team staying - not the talent)

[truth on hold]

Ralphie has left a huge unknown out there saying the team goes to highest bidder without any other conditions. Odds are the highest bidder won't be buffalo based. Then what?

 

If you're ralphie's heirs do you care about rewarding loyal bills fans if it costs you several hundred million dollars?

 

Doubt it

Edited August 26, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[GG]

If you've read enough of this thread to prepare that recap, you won't be surprised that the answer is no. There are a few things I'm still checking out, but here's what I know so far.

 

[snip to save the planet]

 

I will try to post the NFL Bylaw provision concerning team ownership by trusts in the near future, but it is lengthy, so it may take a while before I can do that.

 

Holcomb Era, is that you? You seen to have an uncanny knack for providing voluminous links that you don't seem to understand, nor do they support your theory. Wonder if that's ever happened on these pages before?

 

Do the NFL bylaws allow team ownership by corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, etc? Of course they do. Do the NFL bylaws allow team ownership by public corporations, public limited liability companies, public trusts, etc? Of course they do not.

 

Rogers use of a dual stock structure is a common way for families to control shareholder voting in a family-run public company. That structure is meaningless when the NFL looks at approving a new ownership group. There's a reason that the league has Goldman Sachs on retainer to look at every possible application, and a full financial diligence is done that looks at the sources of the cash and the viability of the owner to continue operating without future liquidity issues (obviously to make sure that the owner doesn't use the team to bail out his other failures - aka Norm Braman).

 

Which bring sus back to Rogers. Since the Trust now controls the assets of the estate, the Trustee is responsible for the administration of the estate under whatever guidelines Ted set out. Ted could have easily spelled out that the Trust should find a way to buy the Buffalo Bills. But that's highly improbable, because no trustee in his right mind would sign off on administering an estate that mandates it to use the bulk of its assets to buy an illiquid asset that could drain cash for years. You also have no idea what the estate beneficiaries want and how they would take on the thought of buying an NFL franchise in a place that isn't exactly screaming for a team and doesn't have an NFL caliber stadium (meaning they'll likely need to pony up another couple of hundred million to have the stadium built).

 

This discussion may have had more merit if Ted Rogers was still alive, as the NFL was his dream. With him gone, Rogers Communications can't wait for the series to end fast enough.

[apuszczalowski]

Holcomb Era, is that you? You seen to have an uncanny knack for providing voluminous links that you don't seem to understand, nor do they support your theory. Wonder if that's ever happened on these pages before?

 

Do the NFL bylaws allow team ownership by corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, etc? Of course they do. Do the NFL bylaws allow team ownership by public corporations, public limited liability companies, public trusts, etc? Of course they do not.

 

Rogers use of a dual stock structure is a common way for families to control shareholder voting in a family-run public company. That structure is meaningless when the NFL looks at approving a new ownership group. There's a reason that the league has Goldman Sachs on retainer to look at every possible application, and a full financial diligence is done that looks at the sources of the cash and the viability of the owner to continue operating without future liquidity issues (obviously to make sure that the owner doesn't use the team to bail out his other failures - aka Norm Braman).

 

Which bring sus back to Rogers. Since the Trust now controls the assets of the estate, the Trustee is responsible for the administration of the estate under whatever guidelines Ted set out. Ted could have easily spelled out that the Trust should find a way to buy the Buffalo Bills. But that's highly improbable, because no trustee in his right mind would sign off on administering an estate that mandates it to use the bulk of its assets to buy an illiquid asset that could drain cash for years. You also have no idea what the estate beneficiaries want and how they would take on the thought of buying an NFL franchise in a place that isn't exactly screaming for a team and doesn't have an NFL caliber stadium (meaning they'll likely need to pony up another couple of hundred million to have the stadium built).

 

This discussion may have had more merit if Ted Rogers was still alive, as the NFL was his dream. With him gone, Rogers Communications can't wait for the series to end fast enough.

1. But I thought that no NFL team loses money and that just having a franchise is a money making machine?

 

2. How do you know this? Where has it been said that Rogers Communications is unhappy with series? Last thing I heard was that they were talking about working on a deal to continue it

 

Toronto will support the NFL and a team, but they won't support someone elses. They also won't support a losing franchise, If they win, the fans will come. The only franchise in Toronto that will fill their home through the good, and bad is the Leafs

[RTW2012]

Ralphie has left a huge unknown out there saying the team goes to highest bidder without any other conditions. Odds are the highest bidder won't be buffalo based. Then what?

 

If you're ralphie's heirs do you care about rewarding loyal bills fans if it costs you several hundred million dollars?

 

Doubt it

 

Except Ralph never said this. All we know is the team will be sold. That is it.

[Matt in KC]

Like throwing a lit match into a dry forest and expecting nothing to happen.

Oh God, this thread is going to get interesting...

 

I'm gonna sit back and watch the show

 

Seriously... where are the marshmallows?

 

If someone could add some dancing girls, this might be a fun spectacle...

[JohnC]

There's a reason that the league has Goldman Sachs on retainer to look at every possible application, and a full financial diligence is done that looks at the sources of the cash and the viability of the owner to continue operating without future liquidity issues (obviously to make sure that the owner doesn't use the team to bail out his other failures - aka Norm Braman).

 

 

Obviously, due diligence was haphazardly done when Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers. Bud Selig should have been summarily dismissed for the way he bungled the McCourt purchase. You bring up a good point about the proper vetting of prospective owners and the repercussions that can occur when not competently done.

Edited August 26, 2011 by JohnC