ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Oh dear lord. Could it be that the TORONTO BUSINESSMAN in question is DEAD? Sometimes it's hard to evaluate sarcastic replies. Are you suggesting that the death of Ted Rogers eliminates even the possibility that a valid right-of-first-refusal to buy the Bills exists and could still be exercised? If so, that's wishful thinking. It may be that no such right-of-first-refusal was ever granted, but the Bills-In-Toronto series deal was completed before Ted Rogers died. If such a right was granted as part of that deal, it would not disappear just because Ted Rogers died, because a sole proprietorship is rarely a billionaire's choice for structuring his business. Likewise, Ralph Wilson is 1 businessman. If he died tomorrow, the Buffalo Bills stadium lease obligations to Erie County won't just disappear because Ralph died. It's no different for any right-of-first-refusal (if one was ever granted in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Sometimes it's hard to evaluate sarcastic replies. Are you suggesting that the death of Ted Rogers eliminates even the possibility that a valid right-of-first-refusal to buy the Bills exists and could still be exercised? If so, that's wishful thinking. It may be that no such right-of-first-refusal was ever granted, but the Bills-In-Toronto series deal was completed before Ted Rogers died. If such a right was granted as part of that deal, it would not disappear just because Ted Rogers died, because a sole proprietorship is rarely a billionaire's choice for structuring his business. Likewise, Ralph Wilson is 1 businessman. If he died tomorrow, the Buffalo Bills stadium lease obligations to Erie County won't just disappear because Ralph died. It's no different for any right-of-first-refusal (if one was ever granted in the first place). For that to have happened Wilson needed to file the agreement with the NFL and the league would need to approve the terms. That news would leak very quickly. It's very likely Wilson talked the sweet talk to Rogers to get the TO deal, but without any guarantee or commitment. Now with Rogers pining for the fjords, there is nothing left. Nobody associated with Rogers is interested in the team, nobody has the money to buy the team, they don't have the stadium. They will likely extend the TO deal, but on terms much more favorable to Rogers Communications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) For that to have happened Wilson needed to file the agreement with the NFL and the league would need to approve the terms. That news would leak very quickly. Why would the league need to currently approve the granting of a right-of-first-refusal, if it created no immediate transfer of any ownership interest and might never be exercised at all? I agree that if anyone ever tried to EXERCISE a right-of-first-refusal to actually cause a present transfer of NFL team ownership, the league would have to approve the sale. That would be similar to what happened when Art Modell sold a minority interest in the Baltimore Ravens to Steve Bisciotti in 1999, and combined it with the grant of an option for Bisciotti to later buy Modell's remaining ownership interest in the team: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-12-20/news/9912200039_1_bisciotti-art-modell-ravens In 2008, Wayne Huizenga agreed to sell 50% of the Miami Dolphins to Stephen Ross, and likewise combined it with an option to buy the remainder of the team at a future date. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-517728/Huizenga-sells-half-share-Miami-Dolphins.html But both of those transactions are significaantly different from a situation where no ownership interest has yet changed hands, and any actual transfer of any ownership interest would take place, if at all, only after Ralph dies at some point in the future. In that scenario, why would anyone need to file the agreement with the League office during Ralph's lifetime? Why not just keep it secret until after Ralph died and avoid the media firestorm that a leak would cause? It's very likely Wilson talked the sweet talk to Rogers to get the TO deal, but without any guarantee or commitment. It's certainly possible. Now with Rogers pining for the fjords, there is nothing left. Nobody associated with Rogers is interested in the team, nobody has the money to buy the team, they don't have the stadium. Not sure exactly what "pining for the fjords" means, but assuming that it means "now that Ted Rogers is dead," I disagree with some of your conclusions. Toronto doesn't have a suitable stadium now, but jw says we shouldn't discount the "dig down" plan to expand the Rogers Center, and the current Toronto mayor is on record as favoring getting an NFL team. As for nobody associated with Rogers having the money or the interest, I've already posted links above showing that may be wrong. Phil Lind is pretty high up in the Rogers Communications food chain, and for a second time, here's a report of what he said in late 2010: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5768936 Lind said Rogers would be committed to playing a key role in luring a franchise, while understanding that NFL rules don't allow corporations to own franchises. "Rogers would certainly play a role, whether that's putting the pieces together or actually doing it itself with the Rogers family," Lind said. "I'm uncertain at this moment, but there's no question that the people in the Rogers organization would be intimately involved in assembling a package." I don't naively think that corporate executives always tell the truth, but do you have any specific reason to think Lind lied or was misquoted about this? When Lind mentions the possibility of Rogers Communications "doing it itself with the Rogers family," don't you think he might be referring to the Rogers Control Trust funding the purchase, with Rogers Communications executives implementing the plan? They will likely extend the TO deal, but on terms much more favorable to Rogers Communications. You may be right about this, but it has no bearing one way or the other on whether a right-of-first-refusal was granted when the Bils-In-Toronto series deal was made. Edited September 8, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Why would the league need to currently approve the granting of a right-of-first-refusal, if it created no immediate transfer of any ownership interest and might never be exercised at all? Because it's worthless if the League doesn't approve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Just stop. You've posted the same unfounded speculations for 10 pages now. We get it - you're paranoid. Take a deep breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Because it's worthless if the League doesn't approve it. I agree that it's worthless if at least 24 other owners don't EVENTUALLY approve it. But before the Bills-In-Toronto series deal was made (1) Ralph publicly stated that the team would be sold after he died, rather than left to a member of his family, and (2) the Toronto Businessmen publicly announced that they were seeking to obtain an NFL franchise for Toronto. In those circumstances, don't you think it's at least plausible that the negotiations between Ralph Wilson ("RW") and the Toronto Businessmen ("TB") went something like this: RW: You know, for the right price, I'd be willing to have the Bills play a game now and then in Toronto. TB: Sounds good Ralph - - we think that would help us show the NFL that the Toronto market will support an NFL team. RW: Owning an NFL team is pretty much a license to print money, fellas. We already pull lots of fans from Toronto to Orchard Park anyway, just think about how easy it will be for you guys to get those fans, and plenty more, to see an NFL game in Toronto. Roger Goodell won't be able to ignore you after that. TB: So how much we talkin' about for 1 game per year, eh? RW: $7 million per game - - I know that sounds a little high, but you'll thank me for doing this deal. TB: C'mon Ralph, we may be Canadians, but we ain't stupid. We're billionaires, too, ya know? We can't make a profit at $7 million per game, but maybe we can make this a win-win situation. A game a year is nice an' all, but what we really want is our own NFL team. How about if you sell us a 49% minority interest in the team now, with an option to buy the rest after you're gone. We know that you're planning to have your estate sell the team anyway some day. If you do that, we will give you $6 million per game. A deal like that worked out OK for Modell and Huizenga. RW: Are you freakin' kiddin' me! I'd have to file the deal papers with the league office and get the deal approved by the other owners, and that lapdog Goodell would let it leak somehow, sure as I'm breathin'. Plus then I gotta pay capital gains taxes on the 49% share I sell you guys, which would be pretty stupid because I'm gonna be payin' estate taxes not long after that anyway. And when word gets out, I'll have those TSW loons buyin' billboards, carryin' torches and pitchforks, and returnin' their season tickets. TB: Well, if your estate's gonna be sellin' the team anyway, how about if you just give us a right-of-first-refusal to match the highest bid that your estate gets for the team after you're gone, eh? Won't cost you nothin' - - your estate still gets the same price - - no extra capital gains taxes, and no need to file anything with the league office until after you're gone. It can just be our little secret for now. Heck, we could go as high as $7 million per game if you throw in the right-of-first refusal, because we'll make it up on the back end after you're gone. RW: I gotta check with Littmann about this. [RW leaves room for a while, then comes back] RW: I can't find a decent GM or head coach to save my life, but that Littmann's a keeper. $7 million, huh? Now, you fellas know that I can't guarantee that the other owners are gonna approve a future sale to a bunch of foreigners, right? ========================================== At this point, your theory is that the Toronto Businessmen, some of whom have already been shmoozing Goodell for a while and may have some preliminary indication that the other NFL owners don't really care where the revenue comes from, as long as it keeps comin', say - - TB: Oh well, never mind about the right-of-first-refusal thingy - - we'll just pay you the $7 million per game anyway. Edited September 8, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 RANT I think you need to ignore the advice of your own user name and try to get some sleep before you die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) ICanSleepWhenI'mDead, I applaud your passion and all the time you've spent on your hobbie, and the satisfaction it's given you. And you've clearly spent significant time and energy on this. Unfortunately, when I see this thread pop up again, I always say to myself "Wow, this again!?" I can't think of any reason you shouldn't post this here, on the Bills message board. The content is appropriately Bills-related, and how you've handled yourself and others has been admirable. I just wish that you'd give us quarterly updates, not weekly or monthly. If you find a smoking gun, by all means bring it here and let's talk about it. I just feel like one or two more pieces of coincidental or circumstantial "evidence" doesn't really change anything, and I've read it (this) before. Actually I've read this thread almost every time it's popped back to the top. I can't help feeling like this is spam from a company I've told to email me. I don't think you're doing anything wrong, but I hate when I see this thread pop up again. Sincerely, Matt Edited September 8, 2011 by Matt in KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I agree that it's worthless if at least 24 other owners don't EVENTUALLY approve it. But before the Bills-In-Toronto series deal was made (1) Ralph publicly stated that the team would be sold after he died, rather than left to a member of his family, and (2) the Toronto Businessmen publicly announced that they were seeking to obtain an NFL franchise for Toronto. In those circumstances, don't you think it's at least plausible that the negotiations between Ralph Wilson ("RW") and the Toronto Businessmen ("TB") went something like this: RW: You know, for the right price, I'd be willing to have the Bills play a game now and then in Toronto. TB: Sounds good Ralph - - we think that would help us show the NFL that the Toronto market will support an NFL team. RW: Owning an NFL team is pretty much a license to print money, fellas. We already pull lots of fans from Toronto to Orchard Park anyway, just think about how easy it will be for you guys to get those fans, and plenty more, to see an NFL game in Toronto. Roger Goodell won't be able to ignore you after that. TB: So how much we talkin' about for 1 game per year, eh? RW: $7 million per game - - I know that sounds a little high, but you'll thank me for doing this deal. TB: C'mon Ralph, we may be Canadians, but we ain't stupid. We're billionaires, too, ya know? We can't make a profit at $7 million per game, but maybe we can make this a win-win situation. A game a year is nice an' all, but what we really want is our own NFL team. How about if you sell us a 49% minority interest in the team now, with an option to buy the rest after you're gone. We know that you're planning to have your estate sell the team anyway some day. If you do that, we will give you $6 million per game. A deal like that worked out OK for Modell and Huizenga. RW: Are you freakin' kiddin' me! I'd have to file the deal papers with the league office and get the deal approved by the other owners, and that lapdog Goodell would let it leak somehow, sure as I'm breathin'. Plus then I gotta pay capital gains taxes on the 49% share I sell you guys, which would be pretty stupid because I'm gonna be payin' estate taxes not long after that anyway. And when word gets out, I'll have those TSW loons buyin' billboards, carryin' torches and pitchforks, and returnin' their season tickets. TB: Well, if your estate's gonna be sellin' the team anyway, how about if you just give us a right-of-first-refusal to match the highest bid that your estate gets for the team after you're gone, eh? Won't cost you nothin' - - your estate still gets the same price - - no extra capital gains taxes, and no need to file anything with the league office until after you're gone. It can just be our little secret for now. Heck, we could go as high as $7 million per game if you throw in the right-of-first refusal, because we'll make it up on the back end after you're gone. RW: I gotta check with Littmann about this. [RW leaves room for a while, then comes back] RW: I can't find a decent GM or head coach to save my life, but that Littmann's a keeper. $7 million, huh? Now, you fellas know that I can't guarantee that the other owners are gonna approve a future sale to a bunch of foreigners, right? ========================================== At this point, your theory is that the Toronto Businessmen, some of whom have already been shmoozing Goodell for a while and may have some preliminary indication that the other NFL owners don't really care where the revenue comes from, as long as it keeps comin', say - - TB: Oh well, never mind about the right-of-first-refusal thingy - - we'll just pay you the $7 million per game anyway. you need to bring some professionals in to help you flesh this out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Your first sentence is incorrect. This has become the biggest joke to ever grace the pages of this board. If you have any real proof, please provide it. Otherwise just stop. All of your links don't prove a single thing. You are obsessed with this. None of the "evidence" you provide even comes close to proving that this idea is a reality. Why do you keep dredging this stuff up? Even if it were true, there is nothing any of us can do about it, so what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 any owner who wanted to maximize revenue ??.....For the record, Forbes reported the team's total operating income at $28.2 million in 2010. Broken down, that's about $4 million per game, as opposed to about $12.5 million per Toronto regular season game. The Toronto deal was 8 million a game and thet deal will not be duplicated by Rogers, if they are sane. And the whole think is a public realtions disaster for the Bills ownership as, by all accounts, the games are a dud in Toronto and they have been taken away from WNY. A new owner wouldn't make a deal to send 25% of games away to an unfit stadium partially filled with fans--most who have coem to see the opposing team play the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 A right of first refusal (if any were ever made) would be made to any local WNY buyers, not to move the team elsewhere. You're implying that if a new Buffalo based owner who wanted to keep the team in Buffalo offers the highest price, then the Wilson's would take the same amount of money to watch Buffalo lose the franchise and their name become mud like Modell's in Cleveland. Never. Ralph may be bad at staffing and retaining good employees, but I think he's a good human being. If it meant losing a hundred mil I could see them moving the team, but for even money--no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 . . . I just wish that you'd give us quarterly updates, not weekly or monthly. If you find a smoking gun, by all means bring it here and let's talk about it. I just feel like one or two more pieces of coincidental or circumstantial "evidence" doesn't really change anything, and I've read it (this) before. Actually I've read this thread almost every time it's popped back to the top. I can't help feeling like this is spam from a company I've told to email me. I don't think you're doing anything wrong, but I hate when I see this thread pop up again. Sincerely, Matt Hey Matt, I'm pretty confident that I won't find a smoking gun - - because if a right-of-first-refusal was ever granted in the first place there are good reasons why the parties to the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal would want to keep it secret. And in the unlikely event that anyone ever does find proof that a right-of-first-refusal was granted, you won't need to read this particular thread to find out about it - - the news would be talked about elsewhere. I'm not offended by your characterization, but if you consider this thread spam in the absence of a smoking gun, why not just ignore it? Or maybe ignore it but do a roughly quarterly search on the title so that you can skim it whenever the mood strikes? I do try to avoid repetitive posting of links that already appear elsewhere in this thread, except for when they are pertinent to someone else's reply. To give you a "heads-up," I recently found a few new Toronto-related links that I will probably post in the next several days - - but they are mainly in the "keeping an eye on Toronto's ambitions after Ralph's gone" category, rather than supporting the notion that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted. I suppose it's possible, but I don't really expect to find much new info about what happened before and during the time that the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal was first being negotiated. As I've pointed out before, even if you think the idea that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted is hogwash, there is certainly reason to think that people from Toronto might bid if the Bills go up for sale after Ralph is gone. For me, that is reason enough to periodically run google searches for new Toronto info, and share what I find. Not speaking of you, because your reply above was exceedingly polite, but if others find this topic upsetting and post rude replies, I figure it's really not very hard to ignore them. So I can hardly be offended if you make a rational choice to ignore this thread because it lacks the type of content you prefer to read. P.S. Would quarterly updates even be possible anyway? I'm not sure how long a thread with no recent replies remains open before the mods close it. Wouldn't it be worse if I was periodically starting a new thread about this topic, so that people with preferences similar to yours would not know in advance whether they should ignore it or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Hey Matt, I'm pretty confident that I won't find a smoking gun - - because if a right-of-first-refusal was ever granted in the first place there are good reasons why the parties to the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal would want to keep it secret. And in the unlikely event that anyone ever does find proof that a right-of-first-refusal was granted, you won't need to read this particular thread to find out about it - - the news would be talked about elsewhere. I'm not offended by your characterization, but if you consider this thread spam in the absence of a smoking gun, why not just ignore it? Or maybe ignore it but do a roughly quarterly search on the title so that you can skim it whenever the mood strikes? I do try to avoid repetitive posting of links that already appear elsewhere in this thread, except for when they are pertinent to someone else's reply. To give you a "heads-up," I recently found a few new Toronto-related links that I will probably post in the next several days - - but they are mainly in the "keeping an eye on Toronto's ambitions after Ralph's gone" category, rather than supporting the notion that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted. I suppose it's possible, but I don't really expect to find much new info about what happened before and during the time that the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal was first being negotiated. As I've pointed out before, even if you think the idea that a right-of-first-refusal may have already been granted is hogwash, there is certainly reason to think that people from Toronto might bid if the Bills go up for sale after Ralph is gone. For me, that is reason enough to periodically run google searches for new Toronto info, and share what I find. Not speaking of you, because your reply above was exceedingly polite, but if others find this topic upsetting and post rude replies, I figure it's really not very hard to ignore them. So I can hardly be offended if you make a rational choice to ignore this thread because it lacks the type of content you prefer to read. P.S. Would quarterly updates even be possible anyway? I'm not sure how long a thread with no recent replies remains open before the mods close it. Wouldn't it be worse if I was periodically starting a new thread about this topic, so that people with preferences similar to yours would not know in advance whether they should ignore it or not? Ralph has already made arrangements for the franchise when he passes. It is simple: Sold to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 -- third, lack of a game-ready stadium, requirement of NFL approval, political ramifications on both sides of the border all stand as significant obstacles for a deal to become reality. jw Hey jw, If you are still interested in the topic of whether Toronto can eventually get an NFL franchise (whether it's the Bills or some other team), check this out: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1045774--city-wants-to-seize-port-lands-project The city has proposed to seize the port lands redevelopment project from Waterfront Toronto, the three-government agency Councillor Doug Ford has repeatedly criticized. The proposal calls into question the future of Waterfront Toronto’s plans for the site. The agency, which has received $500 million from each of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, wants to create a mixed-use Lower Don Lands community with 12,500 residential units, 500,000 square feet of retail space, and 53 hectares of parks and public space. Ford, who has called the agency “the biggest boondoggle the feds, the province and the city has ever done,” wants parks on the site — but has also proposed an NFL football stadium, “massive” high-end stores and a monorail. Ford declined to comment Friday, saying he would not speak to the Star. Under the proposal from the city’s top bureaucrat released Friday afternoon, the city would attempt to renegotiate its port lands agreement with the other governments and, if necessary, consider terminating it. Under the proposal, Mayor Rob Ford’s administration would gain far more control over the port lands than it has at present. The city would remove the site from Waterfront Toronto and hand it to a reconfigured Toronto Port Lands Company. The company’s current board is composed entirely of senior city bureaucrats. Under the proposal, the board would have two councillors, five citizen appointees and two bureaucrats. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Waterfront Toronto spokeswoman Marisa Piattelli would not say whether the agency believes Doug Ford is behind the attempt to seize the project. But she said the proposal did not come as a surprise given Ford’s public comments about the site. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * “If there’s a change of direction, and a change of approach, and the three governments want to do that, then Waterfront Toronto takes its direction from the three governments,” she said. I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but if the Toronto mayor wants to help lure an NFL franchise to town, his looney councilman brother has previously proposed a new waterfront stadium, and the Toronto mayor is looking for a way to increase the city's control over $1.5 billion of previously committed public funds for waterfront development without raising a penny in new taxes - - is this part of a grand plan to use at least some portion of that $1.5 billion to help fund a new football stadium in Toronto? I don't know - - but it sure seems like a power grab that bears watching. There is reason to believe that the Toronto city council may vote on the proposed shift in waterfront development control tomorrow: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/ The Waterfront Saga The Port Lands item goes to council on Wednesday. It will play out one of two ways. Either the mayor’s office has been successful in brokering some sort of compromise motion — moved in the form of an amendment — that they know will pass with support from the usual gang, or they’ll simply make a quick motion to defer the item and it will come off the agenda without a significant amount of debate. The latter is the better outcome, though the best thing would be an up-and-down vote that would rightly see council reject any notion of change to the current plan. Some are predicting that the power grab by the Toronto mayor will fail despite lobbying by his looney councilman brother: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/2011/09/15/the-port-lands-vote-the-first-significant-defeat-for-the-ford-administration/ http://www.thestar.com/news/torontocouncil/article/1054843--two-more-ford-allies-reject-his-port-lands-vision I don't know how any of this will shake out, but it will be interesting to watch the power struggle for control of $1.5 billion in public funds by elected officials on record as wanting to bring NFL football to Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) I'll give the looney Toronto councilman one thing, he doesn't lack for big and impractical ideas. He has recently suggested "pulling a Dubai" and building a man-made island in Lake Ontario on which to build an NFL stadium, complete with dockside tailgating on boats! http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/03/feature-doug-ford-%E2%80%94-idea-man/ Indeed, love him or loathe him, Mayor Rob Ford’s older brother has become an idea machine, someone who isn’t afraid to toss out unorthodox concepts in the hopes that they create jobs and boost Toronto’s profile. He has championed scoring the city an NFL team, and at one point suggested dropping a stadium on the Port Lands. He has raised the possibility of tunnelling three levels under the Gardiner Expressway — one level for trains, one for a toll road and another road that is free — and developing above it. In a sit-down interview with the National Post this week, he prefaced an unheard-of scheme with “now, this is way out there.” “If we have the privilege of getting a football team, we need a stadium,” the Etobicoke city councillor began, while sitting in City Hall’s cafeteria. Forget about putting it in the Port Lands. Why not take the infill from tunneling a transit line under Eglinton Avenue and “pull a Dubai,” he says, building a lollipop-shape land mass from the mainland into Lake Ontario, precise location undetermined, on which a new football stadium could sit. He sketches it out on a reporter’s notepad, marking lines around the circular island stadium to illustrate lakeside bars. “So you have tailgating on the boats, and a massive dock all the way around. And a big parking lot here,” he says, drawing a rectangle on the mainland. “Anyone who scanned Toronto and saw this magnificent stadium in the middle of the lake — well, not really in the middle but a quarter-mile out — they would look out and say, that’s Toronto,” he says. “It would be a big dream… but what a sight.” Edited September 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) This thread needs to be merged with the 'Brady is classless; Jerk; etc. etc' one... Wilson on rumor (per Buffalo News 9-18-11) "One Bills rumor that keeps cropping up is that owner Ralph Wilson has struck a secret agreement with people in Toronto or that he already has sold a small portion of the team to another investor. Wilson categorically denied it this week. "I haven't sold any of it," he said. "I have never sold any business that we've been in [to any partners]. I've owned 100 percent [of his businesses]." Edited September 20, 2011 by Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ralph has already made arrangements for the franchise when he passes. It is simple: Sold to the highest bidder. Actually he's already made arrangements to sell it to a group who plan on keeping the team here for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (Yawn) This again? Hey jw, If you are still interested in the topic of whether Toronto can eventua I think I can speak for jw (and everyone else)... he's NOT. I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but if the Toronto mayor wants to help lure an NFL fra If my uncle had breasts, he'd be my aunt. Some are predicting that...I don't know how any of this will shake out Then why'd you bump your thread? Just to post what you don't know? STOP ALREADY!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) This thread needs to be merged with the 'Brady is classless; Jerk; etc. etc' one... Wilson on rumor (per Buffalo News 9-18-11) "One Bills rumor that keeps cropping up is that owner Ralph Wilson has struck a secret agreement with people in Toronto or that he already has sold a small portion of the team to another investor. Wilson categorically denied it this week. "I haven't sold any of it," he said. "I have never sold any business that we've been in [to any partners]. I've owned 100 percent [of his businesses]." Thanks for the link - - I hadn't seen that article. A few points: 1. Maybe the conversation that Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News had with Ralph Wilson went into more detail than what the quotes attributed to Wilson in the article show, but all Wilson was quoted as saying in the article was that he's never sold any portion of the Bills. That's not inconsistent with the idea that he could have granted a right-of-first-refusal, because any such right would not require a sale during Ralph's lifetime. I'll grant you that Gaughan could easily have gotten an answer from Wilson that would make it clear whether any such right was ever granted, but if he did, the quotes in the article attributed to Wilson don't reflect that. Nothing Gaughan actually quoted Wilson as saying is inconsistent with the existance of a right-of-first-refusal that hasn't been exercised yet, because Ralph is still alive. Does Gaughan understand enough about how a right-of-first-refusal exercisable on Ralph's death would work so that Gaughan could detect a somewhat non-responsive answer and ask the required follow-up question to nail it down? I don't know. 2. I don't know if it's accurate, but it has been reported that Ralph Wilson Enterprises once owned a TV station, and later sold it to an ownership group that included Ralph Wilson and others - - maybe Ralph forgot about it or maybe Ralph wasn't referring to Ralph Wilson Enterprises in his comments to Gaughan: http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-11-29/news/28590508_1 Channel 36 began broadcasting in October 1967 with the call letters KGSC. It broadcast mostly of black and white movies, wrestling and such late-night fare as "Old Sourdough" and "Movies 'til Dawn." Its call letters were changed to KICU when it was bought by Ralph Wilson Enterprises. Like the Silicon Valley around it, it grew quickly and its programming expanded to include highly rated off-network series, local news and other local programming. Ownership changed again in the early 1990s, with the station going to a group of local businessmen, including Ralph Wilson, the late William Hirshey and Jim Evers, the station's current general manager and president. 3. Even if no right-of-first-refusal exists, Toronto people may bid on the Bills if the team is put up for sale after Ralph passes, so following developments in Toronto is still relevant to the Bills' future. Edit: 4. "I've never sold any business that we've been in . . ." Maybe just a slip of the tongue, but who's "we"? Probably just a reference to the private corporations he owns as "we" (because he runs them with the help of employees like Littmann), but it's hard to be sure exactly what he was referring to by "we." Edited September 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts