Stads Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I listened to Mike and Mike this morning as well and they said the Bills weren't going to L.A because they were going to Toronto instead.
dwight in philly Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) http://bills.buffalo...-bills-staying/.. a bit of optimism.. Edited June 2, 2014 by dwight in philly
RevWarRifleman Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 How does Polancarz acknowledging there are bidders looking to move the team turn into "OMG THE TEAM IS GONE!" Bingo! What he said. Thanks, Promo.
oman128 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Of course there are bidders who want to buy and move the team. It's pure economics. Buffalo has been on the poorest city list for a while now, almost any other city would generate more income for the new owner. Despite all the new development in Buffalo, the Bills leaving town in 6 years would be a gut punch, they wouldn't be able recover from for a long while. Edited June 2, 2014 by oman128
SRQ_BillsFan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Question: not sure how much but, if the team moves from Buffalo and makes significantly more in LA, how much impact does that have on the other owners? What does it potentially do to the salary cap. While this may not be a huge amount would we get 9 "no" votes from teams that don't want to lose another 5-10 million when the salary cap goes up. Buffalo being on the low end of the scale has to help to keep it lower? Plus teams couldn't use LA anymore when they need a new stadium. Just like it is being used here/now. . Edited June 2, 2014 by SRQ_BillsFan
dave mcbride Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Just a general comment: I'm not singling anyone in this thread out, but generally speaking most thoughtful people view sneering sarcasm as a weapon of the weak. It's also tiresome and depressing to see it over and over.
thebandit27 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Lots of good info on why the Toronto move makes zero sense...coming from a guy that's had the pulse of the Toronto group for some time now: http://blogs.canoe.c...-to-beat-in-bi/ EDIT: Credit goes to FluffHead for linking this in another thread. Edited June 2, 2014 by thebandit27
Peter Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I started to read this thread, but, frankly, it depresses me. I know that there is speculation regarding what is in the trust. I am not a trusts and estates lawyer, but it is my understanding that you can direct pretty much anything you want regarding your estate. Simple example, if you want your car (or anything else) to go to one of your kids as opposed to another, you can do that. If you want your fortune to go to your kids, but only if they finish college, you can do that. I do not see why Ralph could not have done the same thing. The issue is what was Ralph's testamentary intent? There has been a lot of speculation about that. We do know that he had the Bills sign a lease that created significant hurdles for the team to move in the near term and that also contained provisions that may preclude the Bills from selling to someone who has the intent to move the team. With any luck, Ralph was clear about that in his will. It is true that the trustees have a fiduciary duty. That duty includes carrying out Ralph's intent - whatever that may be. I know I have read somewhere that supposedly Ralph said that he spoke with lawyers who advised him that he could not restrict the sale of the team to only someone who would keep the Bills in Buffalo. I have no idea whether Ralph ever said that or, if he did say that, whether he ever got that advice. Again, I am not a trust and estates lawyer, but I have a very hard time believing that the law precluded him from directing that the team be sold to a person who would keep the team in Buffalo. He could sell to whomever he wanted in life as well as in death. There are two complicating factors that I can think of. First, estate tax (or capital gains) hit is going to be astronomical given that he bought the team for $25,000. That issue played a significant part in the Robbie family having to sell the team to Wayne Huizinga (along with fighting among the heirs). The other complicating factor is whoever buys the team would have to be approved by the NFL owners. Are there any trusts and estates lawyers out there that have any insight on all of this? In the end, whether the team stays in Buffalo is largely going to depend on whether the State, County, and/or City are willing to do what it takes to build a stadium that the NFL wants. I think that is our best shot. Edited June 2, 2014 by Peter
thebandit27 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I started to read this thread, but, frankly, it depresses me. I know that there is speculation regarding what is in the trust. I am not a trusts and estates lawyer, but it is my understanding that you can direct pretty much everything you want regarding your estate. Simple example, if you want your car (or anything else) to go to one of your kids as opposed to another, you can do that. If you want your fortune to go to your kids, but only if they finish college, you can do that. I do not see why Ralph could not have done the same thing. The issue is what was Ralph's testamentary intent? There has been a lot of speculation about that. We do know that he had the Bills sign a lease that created significant hurdles for the team to move in the near term and that also contained provisions that may preclude the Bills from selling to someone who has the intent on moving the team. With any luck, Ralph was clear about that in his will. It is true that the trustees have a fiduciary duty. That duty includes carrying out Ralph's intent - whatever that may be. I know I have read somewhere that supposedly Ralph said that he spoke with lawyers who advised him that he could not restrict the sale of the team to only someone who would keep the Bills in Buffalo. I have no idea whether Ralph ever said that or, if he did say that, whether he ever got that advice. Again, I am not a trust and estates lawyer, but I have a very hard time believing that the law precluded him from directing that the team be sold to a person who would keep the team in Buffalo. He could sell to whomever he wanted in life as well as in death. There are two complicating factors that I can think of. First, estate tax hit is going to be astronomical given that he bought the team for $25,000. That issue played a significant part in the Robbie family having to sell the team to Wayne Huizinga (along with fighting among the heirs). The other complicating factor is whoever buys the team would have to be approved by the NFL owners. Are there any trusts and estates lawyers out there that have any insight on all of this? In the end, whether the team stays in Buffalo is largely going to depend on whether the State, County, and/or City are willing to do what it takes to build a stadium that the NFL wants. I think that is our best shot. I'm not a tax expert, but my understanding is that spouses are exempt from estate taxes. Ralph didn't sell during his lifetime so as not to saddle his estate with capital gains taxes either as far as I can understand. Again though, I'm not a tax expert. Edited June 2, 2014 by thebandit27
Peter Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I'm not a tax expert, but my understanding is that spouses are exempt from state taxes. Ralph didn't sell during his lifetime so as not to saddle his estate with capital gains taxes either as far as I can understand. Again though, I'm not a tax expert. I am not either. I just wish that, one day soon, I will wake up and find out that the Pegulas, Golisano, the Jacobs family (or someone like these people) have bought the team.
Wayne Cubed Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Lots of good info on why the Toronto move makes zero sense...coming from a guy that's had the pulse of the Toronto group for some time now: http://blogs.canoe.c...-to-beat-in-bi/ EDIT: Credit goes to FluffHead for linking this in another thread. Wow. Jacobs sitting back and waiting to put the right bid over the top. That says it all.
YoloinOhio Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 I am not either. I just wish that, one day soon, I will wake up and find out that the Pegulas, Golisano, the Jacobs family (or someone like these people) have bought the team. I still think the team will be purchased by someone who has yet to announce his intentions, plans to keep the team in WNY, and which includes Kelly and Thurman as investors.
ET1062 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I have seen a lot of pictures today of Mary Wilson attending Jim Kelly's golf tournament laughing with former players. If she were even considering selling the team to out of town interests, I can't imagine her attending knowing she could break all of their hearts in a couple of months. If she were going to screw over the former players, she would have just sent a donation and would not have attended. Edited June 2, 2014 by ET1062
8-8 Forever? Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 The 2 great unknowns from my perspective are (a) whether the trustees have the leeway to accept something other than the highest bid (b) could the buyer move the team to, Say, Toronto or L.A. and simply pay stadium rent both on an empty Ralph AND to, say Rogers in the case of Toronto and the Coliseum in the case of L.A. while new stadium being built in either market. If the Ralph will need even more updates in the next 5 years, the buyer could just pay the rent on the empty stadium instead. Does the lease require payments on the lease under penalty (we know this is true) AND that the stadium must also be USED. Hard to believe a lease for a piece of property requiring the tenant to pay AND to use will hold up in court. Tenants in office buildings move and pay double rent for a period of time when it makes sense. 5 years of lame duck play in WNY could be more damaging to the franchise than just sucking up double rent and moving right away. One would think the highest bid will be from a party who intends to move the team to a higher cash flow market. Makes sense to me. Don't like it , but it makes sense to me.
May Day 10 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 maybe she was laughing at the former players (b) could the buyer move the team to, Say, Toronto or L.A. and simply pay stadium rent both on an empty Ralph AND to, say Rogers in the case of Toronto and the Coliseum in the case of L.A. while new stadium being built in either market. If the Ralph will need even more updates in the next 5 years, the buyer could just pay the rent on the empty stadium instead. Does the lease require payments on the lease under penalty (we know this is true) AND that the stadium must also be USED. Hard to believe a lease for a piece of property requiring the tenant to pay AND to use will hold up in court. Tenants in office buildings move and pay double rent for a period of time when it makes sense. 5 years of lame duck play in WNY could be more damaging to the franchise than just sucking up double rent and moving right away. One would think the highest bid will be from a party who intends to move the team to a higher cash flow market. Makes sense to me. Don't like it , but it makes sense to me. I believe "rent" is paid by "playing".
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 No one thought the Clippers were worth $2 billion. Milwaukee Bucks went for $550 million... The Milwaukee Bucks? Huh?
BillnutinHouston Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Brandon's silence on the "fiduciary duty" question speaks volumes. He doesn't want to publicly state that this is the obvious requirement and potentially quell bidding. I would argue this spells out the reality. Now, the bigger question is what role does the NFL play in this, or can they? Do they want it where every time a team needs/demands a new stadium in a smaller market (there are lot of small market on the context of the CHI/LA/NYC markets BTW) that relocation is an open option so that they can basically chase the top 32 markets all the time. If that's the case, they've turned unmistakably from an entertainment entity to a money machine not unlike GM or any corpoation seeking maximum profits over all else. Can you explain/provide context to the first two sentences? What was the "fiduciary duty" question?
K-9 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I have seen a lot of pictures today of Mary Wilson attending Jim Kelly's golf tournament laughing with former players. If she were even considering selling the team to out of town interests, I can't imagine her attending knowing she could break all of their hearts in a couple of months. If she were going to screw over the former players, she would have just sent a donation and would not have attended. This is wonderful stuff. There's a reason Mr. Wilson set up the hierarchy within the trust. Seeing her weeping with fans at the memorial at the field house and her genuine affection for those there, it's hard to believe her and Mary Owen won't favor a competitive bidder whose intentions are to keep the team in WNY vs. one that wouldn't. I really believe the cynics are wrong when they say it will come down to money and nothing else. I believe there's a strong sense of a lasting legacy on behalf of Mr. Wilson at play here as well. And I think that "trumps" everything else in the final analysis. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts