BillnutinHouston Posted June 2, 2014 Share 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, this and more this. Ralph would have never put her on the trust if the team was going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted June 2, 2014 Share 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 Does anyone know what the trust instrument says? I would expect that the trustees' duties would be governed, in part, by what the trust says. Maybe Ralph laid out criteria for the trustees in determining how to sell the team-- i.e., making a decision taking into account the best interests of not only the beneficiaries but also the team and community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Does anyone know what the trust instrument says? I would expect that the trustees' duties would be governed, in part, by what the trust says. Maybe Ralph laid out criteria for the trustees in determining how to sell the team-- i.e., making a decision taking into account the best interests of not only the beneficiaries but also the team and community. The fact that the trust needs to approve a buyer with a 3/4 majority, tells me Mr. Wilson allowed for some discretion and dissension in the matter. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 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!!! Contrary to what most believe, some people aren't all about the money. Not more than 4 weeks ago Herb Kohl, former Milwalkee Bucks owener, turned down a bid for $650 million from Steve Ballmer because he wanted the team to stay in Wisconsin. He took $100 million less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Contrary to what most believe, some people aren't all about the money. Not more than 4 weeks ago Herb Kohl, former Milwalkee Bucks owener, turned down a bid for $650 million from Steve Ballmer because he wanted the team to stay in Wisconsin. He took $100 million less. Yup. Golisano did something similar with the Sabres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA BILLS FAN Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) This^ (the Mary's on the voting trust) and the lease are the two biggest things going for us to keep team in WNY --- biggest thing against it is some FOOL like Balmer acting the part and bidding $3B, why ? because he can. Right now, I'm 80% confident team will stay in WNY Edited June 2, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Contrary to what most believe, some people aren't all about the money. Not more than 4 weeks ago Herb Kohl, former Milwalkee Bucks owener, turned down a bid for $650 million from Steve Ballmer because he wanted the team to stay in Wisconsin. He took $100 million less. I think this could be different. The trust is set up for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and the trustees owe a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, which probably includes a duty to wisely invest and dispose of the trust's assets to the benefit of the beneficiaries. That said, I read an article that said that Ralph's trust may have given the trustees discretion to sell the team based not only on what the beneficiaries would get, but also on the basis of whether the league would approve. In other words, it sounds like the trust could turn down a higher bid, and go with a lower bid, if they believe the lower bid would more likely get approved by the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 He'd have to pay relocation fees instead. Make no mistake: the cost of moving this team is astronomical. How much did they charge Art Modell? It's a simple matter of where can a team make more money, here or elsewhere. Clearly there are a number of markets ripe for an NFL team that could do much much better for their owner and which would be in a better position than NYS/EC to build a stadium. NYS doesn't have a pot to piss in anymore. So - if LA is more profitable, and raises the value of a franchise so much - why haven't any of the other teams whose leases have come up moved? How about people who could (supposedly) just break their lease? Aren't there at least 10 franchises that would immediately see an increase and value, and start making more money, by moving to LA? Generally, billionaires buy teams to keep the teams, not to sell to the highest bidder for a profit. There may be some competition from other teams/owners for the LA market, but it is much more difficult for a current owner to move a team than it would be for a purchaser of a team without an owner to then move a team. Why? More difficult than breaking the lease/non-relocation agreement? Or more difficult than letting the franchise linger in limbo for 6 years then moving it? On a pure dollar-for-dollar basis, the Bills rank 22nd in revenue in the NFL, ahead of much larger markets like SF, SD, Atlanta, KC, and St. Louis http://www.forbes.co...en-bay-packers/ So, there are at least 10 teams who would benefit more from relocation than the Bills, right? So here is one way an out of town owner could buy the bills and break the lease. Let us say that a prospective owner is willing to part with a total of 3 Billion. He offers 1.5 Billion to the trust. That should blow all other offers out of the water. He then offers the county 1.5 Billion to buy out the lease. The politicians run for cover as they usually do and vacillate. A taxpayer group sues to bring the issue to a referendum. The voters go to the polls to vote on a 1.5 Billion dollar windfall. If it is a Toronto group the deal even gets sweeter because most of the pro take the money and run folks do not go to the games anyway and they are not going to buy seat licenses and they get to watch the Niagara Cascade play on TV anyway. I am no financial genius so if I thought of it you can bet the smart guys have too. $400M (if dedicated to WNY, not NYS as a whole) might be enough to get taxpayers to support a buyout, $1.5B is way overpaying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Can you explain/provide context to the first two sentences? What was the "fiduciary duty" question? From the OP's link: "I've spoken to [bills CEO Russ] Brandon, I've spoken to [bills CFO Jeffrey Littmann]," Poloncarz separately told WBEN in Buffalo. "They know my request, which is to pick the owner that's going to keep the team in Buffalo. But I don't know if that's going to be the decision that the trustees will end up doing. If they end up getting a bid that's so much higher than anybody else, I don't know if they can turn it down. They may have the fiduciary duty to accept it." Edited June 2, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I think this could be different. The trust is set up for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and the trustees owe a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, which probably includes a duty to wisely invest and dispose of the trust's assets to the benefit of the beneficiaries. That said, I read an article that said that Ralph's trust may have given the trustees discretion to sell the team based not only on what the beneficiaries would get, but also on the basis of whether the league would approve. In other words, it sounds like the trust could turn down a higher bid, and go with a lower bid, if they believe the lower bid would more likely get approved by the league. In most complex sales there is some grey area over the "best" bid. If two bids come in relatively close to each other, there is probably a ton of leeway to accept the lower offer. If there's a huge separation, not so much. That's why putting a solid stadium plan for the WNY area together is so important. If there is an expectation of $300M in public financing here, vs $0M in Toronto, it absolutely factors into the bids different groups will offer. The "Ballmer paid $2B" scenario only applies to a few multi-billionaires over $10B... some of those people are already out of the running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Why would we just assume this fictional out of towner garners the required 3/4 vote of the four voting trustees as well as the 24 votes needed by the current NFL owners? I'm gonna go out on a limb and state that there are more than 9 owners that would prefer a buyer keep the Bills in Buffalo. GO BILLS!!! I am assuming the 600 million dollar premium paid over the existing estimated 900 million current estimated value is enough to convince the Owners of the trust who also own the Bills. Other than your family members is there anything that you own that you would not sell for say 200 million dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I am assuming the 600 million dollar premium paid over the existing estimated 900 million current estimated value is enough to convince the Owners of the trust who also own the Bills. Other than your family members is there anything that you own that you would not sell for say 200 million dollars? Take your pick of the Darryls for the bargain price of $150 million - - I've got a spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Why would we just assume this fictional out of towner garners the required 3/4 vote of the four voting trustees as well as the 24 votes needed by the current NFL owners? I'm gonna go out on a limb and state that there are more than 9 owners that would prefer a buyer keep the Bills in Buffalo. GO BILLS!!! I would think Green bay for sure. Probably Cleveland. Any other clear ones? Otherwise 7 or more owners that would vote against it purely for nostalgia reasons? Hmmm maybe NE*, Mia, and the Jets would rather keep the Bills than take their chances with whatever other team they would put in the AFCE if the Bills moved far enough. Edited June 3, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykaykay Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Yep. I don't see it. There are way too many variables (Oakland and SD among them) for this to really work unless you have a crazy multi-billionaire who is prepared to do this at all costs. I'm not saying that that person doesn't exist, but it's just as likely that the NFL doesn't want to work with someone who is hell-bent on killing a brand regionally for six years just to court the LA market long-term. I mean, there are empty stadiums, but there is also the prospect of destroying all the regional interest that has been cultivated state-wide and north of the border. I see Toronto as really the only viable relocation prospect, and the one to get nervous about -- mostly because I could see the league buying and selling the notion that Toronto is in the same regional base as Buffalo. Another good point. If some knucklehead wants to offer $2B for the Bills, I could see the Rams or Jags owner calling him up and offering the franchise for $1.8B. Has anyone sounded out Warren Buffett on purchasing the Bills? I would think that the Bill's leaving would be a bad thing for his Buffalo businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) maybe she was laughing at the former players I believe "rent" is paid by "playing". No, rent is paid by the act of paying the money that is due. Has nothing to do with using or occupying the property. If you rent me your house , you are not necessarily requiring me to actually move in. Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to happen, but what's the big deal about paying $10-20m per year for 6or7 years to rent an empty stadium when you just paid $1000m for the franchise? seems the lease payments on the ralph are the smallest numbers in this deal.... Edited June 3, 2014 by 8and8Forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Can you explain/provide context to the first two sentences? What was the "fiduciary duty" question? In a story he was asked, I think the recently Poloncarz story but I can't recall and can't go looking (1:30 mtng), if he could confirm the the existence of a "must sell to the highest bidder" requirement and he chose to basically say "no comment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Has anyone sounded out Warren Buffett on purchasing the Bills? I would think that the Bill's leaving would be a bad thing for his Buffalo businesses. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know what the trust instrument says? I would expect that the trustees' duties would be governed, in part, by what the trust says. Maybe Ralph laid out criteria for the trustees in determining how to sell the team-- i.e., making a decision taking into account the best interests of not only the beneficiaries but also the team and community. High bidder, if not awarded the franchise, will probably sue to get the franchise unless Ralph's will specifically says that high bid is only one of many criteria to be considered equally in picking the winner. My understanding is that Ralph was pretty clear that high $$ bidder wins. Hope I am wrong. His hook to keep the team in Buff was the lease and the termination provisions. My point is: new owner just makes the lease payments on the Ralph and still moves the team. Hard to imagine a lease "forcing " the lessee to also occupy and use the leased premises for the term of the lease will hold up in court. As long as the lessee doesn't turn it into a giant flea market, my sense is as long as he is current on the lease payments, the lessee is not obligated to actually use the property...would need to know the annual lease payment to assess the viability of this scenario. Was looking at the Reliant stadium lease... only $4m per year + other payments that are hard to figure out Edited June 3, 2014 by 8and8Forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 High bidder, if not awarded the franchise, will probably sue to get the franchise unless Ralph's will specifically says that high bid is only one of many criteria to be considered equally in picking the winner. My understanding is that Ralph was pretty clear that high $$ bidder wins. Hope I am wrong. His hook to keep the team in Buff was the lease and the termination provisions. My point is: new owner just makes the lease payments on the Ralph and still moves the team. Hard to imagine a lease "forcing " the lessee to also occupy and use the leased premises for the term of the lease will hold up in court. As long as the lessee doesn't turn it into a giant flea market, my sense is as long as he is current on the lease payments, the lessee is not obligated to actually use the property... This isn't a municipal bid subject to NYS General Municipal Law...unless the terms of the Trust state specifically that they need to accept the highest bid, they (as a private entity) can sell to whoever they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 High bidder, if not awarded the franchise, will probably sue to get the franchise unless Ralph's will specifically says that high bid is only one of many criteria to be considered equally in picking the winner. My understanding is that Ralph was pretty clear that high $$ bidder wins. Hope I am wrong. His hook to keep the team in Buff was the lease and the termination provisions. My point is: new owner just makes the lease payments on the Ralph and still moves the team. Hard to imagine a lease "forcing " the lessee to also occupy and use the leased premises for the term of the lease will hold up in court. As long as the lessee doesn't turn it into a giant flea market, my sense is as long as he is current on the lease payments, the lessee is not obligated to actually use the property...would need to know the annual lease payment to assess the viability of this scenario. Was looking at the Reliant stadium lease... only $4m per year + other payments that are hard to figure out Interesting, I had not considered the possibility of moving the team without breaking the lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts