Round 2 : Sale of the team

[Jerry Jabber]

http://t.co/6EaQPSoEAS

 

"Two sources familiar with the sales process told The News the Kellys have made lofty partnership demands: 2 percent equity in the team, lifetime jobs for Jim and Dan, an up-front cash payment for their services and final say on all football decisions."

 

I've always liked Jim Kelly and I know what he means to us Bills fans, but I think Jim is being delusional with his requests.

[Kirby Jackson]

Bandit and Kirby,

 

Thanks for your thoughts, guys, but see below:

 

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/18/rogers-joins-bon-jovi-and-tanenbaum-in-equal-stakes-bid-to-buy-bills

 

 

 

I don't know how good Kryk's info is, and I'm still getting caught up on recent developments. I did see, however, that Forbes recently reported that ALL first stage bids were "well under" $1 billion:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/08/10/all-offers-for-buffalo-bills-below-1-billion/

 

Kryk's Toronto Sun piece quoted above assumes that if Bon Jovi is designated as "controlling owner," he is required to hold at least a 30% stake. That is widely reported in the media, but I don't know if it's true, for reasons I stated upthread.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume it is true. If bids have not yet gone over $1 billion as Forbes reported, I can understand Bon Jovi insisting on being the lead dog, because he thinks he's still in the hunt at this level of bidding.

 

But if Morgan Stanley in round 2 can keep going back to bidders and asking for more, what happens when Pegula's bid gets too high for the Toronto group to match if Toronto is required to have Bon Jovi plunk down 30% of the cash? We don't know if Bon Jovi would give up the lead dog role when faced with the prospect of being a minority owner or no owner at all, because at least according to Forbes, he hasn't been required to make that decision yet.

 

And that's assuming that the person designated as the "controlling owner" must have at least a 30% ownership share, which might simply be an assumption (though admittedly frequently made).

The 30% is a league rule because they didn't want a situation like the Celtics where they have (or had) like 26 owners. JBJ wants to be the controlling guy but he needs the 30% to do it. In addition, the league will only let you borrow $200M because they don't want their owners taking on lots of debt. The dilemma that you raise is exactly why they were never really a threat. Edited August 16, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[BillnutinHouston]

Fluff, who is @HJKforever ?

[thebandit27]

Fluff, who is @HJKforever ?

 

Jill Kelly

[Big Blitz]

Urbik is atrocious

[Fixxxer]

Urbik is atrocious

 

but he would make a great owner.

[jahnyc]

A lot of egos involved with this process, but nothing changes the reality that Pegula seems to have the financial resources to do this alone and the NFL would prefer a single owner over a group.

 

I appreciate everything JK has done for the Bills over the years, but I think Pegula will provide the most stability for the franchise in Buffalo in the near and long term.

[TheFunPolice]

this freaking Toronto group is like something from your worst nightmare!

 

If they get their slimy hands on this team it WILL be moved to Toronto at the expiration of the lease, regardless of whether the guy who would own 2% is Jim Kelly.

 

98% ownership doesn't take orders from the 2% owners.

 

Toronto group and Bon Jovi: JUST GO AWAY!

Edited August 17, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[The Dean]

this freaking Toronto group is like something from your worst nightmare!

 

If they get their slimy hands on this team it WILL be moved to Toronto at the expiration of the lease, regardless of whether the guy who would own 2% is Jim Kelly.

 

98% ownership doesn't take orders from the 2% owners.

 

Toronto group and Bon Jovi: JUST GO AWAY!

 

What makes you think Kelly is involved with "the Toronto Group"? My understanding is, he spoke with JBJ, personally. JBJ would join Kelly and Gundlach, I believe.

 

Doesn't' really matter as it isn't going to happen.

[TheFunPolice]

What makes you think Kelly is involved with "the Toronto Group"? My understanding is, he spoke with JBJ, personally. JBJ would join Kelly and Gundlach, I believe.

 

Doesn't' really matter as it isn't going to happen.

 

So who has the $$ then?

 

Bon Jovi doesn't have the money to own an NFL team. Kelly has basically none to invest (when it comes to the $$ it takes to buy a team). Even those 3 together is basically Gundlach and Bon Jovi, with Jim tossing in $20 and demanding to run the whole show.

 

The idea is a little ironic: Bon Jovi (a guy who wants rich guys to buy him an NFL team to play with) teaming up with Kelly (a guy who wants rich guys to buy him the Bills to play with).

 

Still, it is going to take billions, and neither of them have the billions. If this happens, it means that the NFL WANTS the Bon Jovi group to win.

 

Could this be any more of a circus?

Edited August 17, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[The Dean]

So who has the $$ then?

 

Bon Jovi doesn't have the money to own an NFL team. Kelly has basically none to invest (when it comes to the $$ it takes to buy a team). Even those 3 together is basically Gundlach and Bon Jovi, with Jim tossing in $20 and demanding to run the whole show.

 

The idea is a little ironic: Bon Jovi (a guy who wants rich guys to buy him an NFL team to play with) teaming up with Kelly (a guy who wants rich guys to buy him the Bills to play with).

 

Still, it is going to take billions, and neither of them have the billions. If this happens, it means that the NFL WANTS the Bon Jovi group to win.

 

Could this be any more of a circus?

 

Well it seems that way, doesn't it? I can only guess what goes on behind the scenes when other teams go on sale. Since we basically don't know anything about that, until the deal is done, it could be they are all this way. For sure some big time deals go down this way. People changing partners, aligning with different buyers. It's pretty unseamly when it's out in the open. Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made.

 

Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others.

 

So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr.

 

The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry.

 

Go Bills.

I'm not trying to start a big argument about this, but just want to add that the only reason it would be personal is if you choose to make it so. I'm fairly comfortable thinking that JBJ motives were strictly business and had no thought of victimizing you , me or your dad. I started going to games in the late 60's so I'm pretty solid with the team like your dad, I just choose not to take it personally because I know it's not meant that way.

Of course, I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to feel that way. Just my opinion.

 

"It's just business" is a great line, and the one used by people when they screw over someone else. But I think "just business" can be used to cover some particularly evil tactics. Simply because something is legal, doesn't' make it the right thing to do. I really like purple haze's take. "it's just personal". To keep this thread out of PPP, I'll hold off what I'd prefer to say. But let's just leave it at: "It's just business" is something many people say before they ruin your life---and laugh about it.

[TheFunPolice]

Last week we heard that the Toronto group had its meeting, and it was pretty much "let's just get through this." They were done.

 

Now all of a sudden I'm sitting on the couch watching a riveting game of Bills preseason football and my buddy texts me to ask "did you see Jim Kelly is going to team up with Bon Jovi now?" Of course, that's not even what TG reported, but that was the gist of what some people who half pay attention got from it.

 

So I read up a bit and I wonder what possible good can come of this for Jim? The Toronto group is pretty much universally hated around WNY. Pegula is most fans' dream owner. Everything seems to be going the right direction, and NOW you even consider teaming up with the enemy to defeat Pegula's bid?

 

I can only think of one way it makes sense: the NFL really wants Bon Jovi and his Toronto vulture friends to get the team. Getting Jim involved makes the PR part of it a lot easier (or so they think). They could even be exerting pressure on the trust behind the scenes, or the trust itself might want to give Rogers and Tannenbaum a favor for doing business the past several years but feel really stuck with all the negative PR. In the end, IF the NFL really wants to see Bon Jovi's Toronto buddies buy him the Bills as an early Christmas present to play with, Jim being involved somehow to put a happy face on it solves a lot of problems. In return, maybe Jim gets a lot more power/money than he would otherwise be able to command. He has the most value to this group, so he has the best chance of squeezing concessions from them because they are desperate.

 

If that's not the case, I cannot fathom why Kelly would want any part of the Toronto group. Bon Jovi does not have the money, so he isn't going to be able to cast the people who are going to pay 2/3 of the cost to the side of the road. Gundlach has cash, but not the kind Rogers and Tannebaum have, so that's going in reverse financially. And Jim (although we love him) brings goodwill but no heavy duty financial backing to the party.

 

Now if Gundlach AND Kelly join the Toronto group to keep Pegula from buying the Bills then we can officially say that something stinks in this whole process. I cannot even believe that this is a conversation at this point in the process, so anything is possible to me now.

[The Dean]

Last week we heard that the Toronto group had its meeting, and it was pretty much "let's just get through this." They were done.

 

Now all of a sudden I'm sitting on the couch watching a riveting game of Bills preseason football and my buddy texts me to ask "did you see Jim Kelly is going to team up with Bon Jovi now?" Of course, that's not even what TG reported, but that was the gist of what some people who half pay attention got from it.

 

So I read up a bit and I wonder what possible good can come of this for Jim? The Toronto group is pretty much universally hated around WNY. Pegula is most fans' dream owner. Everything seems to be going the right direction, and NOW you even consider teaming up with the enemy to defeat Pegula's bid?

 

I can only think of one way it makes sense: the NFL really wants Bon Jovi and his Toronto vulture friends to get the team. Getting Jim involved makes the PR part of it a lot easier (or so they think). They could even be exerting pressure on the trust behind the scenes, or the trust itself might want to give Rogers and Tannenbaum a favor for doing business the past several years but feel really stuck with all the negative PR. In the end, IF the NFL really wants to see Bon Jovi's Toronto buddies buy him the Bills as an early Christmas present to play with, Jim being involved somehow to put a happy face on it solves a lot of problems. In return, maybe Jim gets a lot more power/money than he would otherwise be able to command. He has the most value to this group, so he has the best chance of squeezing concessions from them because they are desperate.

 

If that's not the case, I cannot fathom why Kelly would want any part of the Toronto group. Bon Jovi does not have the money, so he isn't going to be able to cast the people who are going to pay 2/3 of the cost to the side of the road. Gundlach has cash, but not the kind Rogers and Tannebaum have, so that's going in reverse financially. And Jim (although we love him) brings goodwill but no heavy duty financial backing to the party.

 

Now if Gundlach AND Kelly join the Toronto group to keep Pegula from buying the Bills then we can officially say that something stinks in this whole process. I cannot even believe that this is a conversation at this point in the process, so anything is possible to me now.

 

What does the NFL have to do with it, at this stage? This is an issue for The Trust, plan and simple. This is paranoia at it craziest, IMO.

 

My guess is the Toronto group has fallen apart. JBJ is looking to find a way to link up with/lead another group. They had conversations. So what? What could have possibly come from two guys who lack the funds to buy an NFL team? Pretending JBJ is still with the TO group, even with Kelly, the TO group doesn't have the $$ to buy the team with JBJ as the lead. Kelly wants to make all the football decisions with almost no money. You think the NFL is backing this circus? And they have no say as to who buys the team, with the exception of approving, or not approving, the owner.

[TheFunPolice]

What does the NFL have to do with it, at this stage? This is an issue for The Trust, plan and simple. This is paranoia at it craziest, IMO.

 

My guess is the Toronto group has fallen apart. JBJ is looking to find a way to link up with/lead another group. They had conversations. So what? What could have possibly come from two guys who lack the funds to buy an NFL team? Pretending JBJ is still with the TO group, even with Kelly, the TO group doesn't have the $$ to buy the team with JBJ as the lead. Kelly wants to make all the football decisions with almost no money. You think the NFL is backing this circus? And they have no say as to who buys the team, with the exception of approving, or not approving, the owner.

 

Paranoia? Maybe, but who honestly thought that on August 17th the topic of Jim Kelly joining forces with Bon Jovi's group would be a topic being discussed by reputable news sources? That's pretty much the doomsday scenario.

 

In terms of who gets the team, the NFL have no direct "say" but they have a say. The NFL is a very tight club that all the members of the trust are very familiar with. The Bills have also done $100+ million dollars worth of business with MLSE and Rogers over the past handful of years, so there is a direct relationship established there already.

 

Given how this has played out, I would not rule out the idea that they are trying to find a way to make a sale to Rogers/MLSE work (thus the whole idea of Bon Jovi to start with). Rogers and MLSE do not need Bon Jovi, and quite frankly he is the limiting factor in their bid. So why bother? Well, he was probably their first idea of how to put a happy face on it.

 

Classic rocker from the US fronts the group bankrolled by Rogers/MLSE. See, we aren't going to move them! Bon Jovi is as American as you can get!

 

That didn't work, so now they are trying to enlist Jim. They are no less full of crap now than they were before. Just more desperate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_SuperSonics#Relocation_to_Oklahoma_City

 

Read the above and just replace Bennett with Rogers/Tannenbaum/Bon Jovi and Supersonics with Bills.

Edited August 17, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[KevinL]

What makes you think Kelly is involved with "the Toronto Group"? My understanding is, he spoke with JBJ, personally. JBJ would join Kelly and Gundlach, I believe.

 

Doesn't' really matter as it isn't going to happen.

Multiple sources on both sides of the border have told The Buffalo News that Bon Jovi and his Toronto-based partners reached out to Kelly within the past five days for a Hail Mary attempt to help salvage their beleaguered bid.

[Who is Yuri?]

The fans and media who have already turned on Jim Kelly remind me very much of the fans and media who turned on Pat Lafontaine.

[TheFunPolice]

The fans and media who have already turned on Jim Kelly remind me very much of the fans and media who turned on Pat Lafontaine.

 

Who has "turned" on Jim Kelly?

 

The Toronto group is the enemy, and they are just desperately trying to get Jim to join.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . In terms of who gets the team, the NFL have no direct "say" but they have a say. . . .

Here's what worries me - - if I remember correctly, the NFL Commissioner has pretty recently said that the Bills need a new stadium to remain "viable" in WNY. My brother Darryl figures that the other 31 owners would like to see the trend of decreased public financing of new stadiums reversed. Darryl may be slow, but even he can see that non-local ownership groups are likely to have more leverage than Pegula when it comes time to squeeze the state and county for stadium concessions. And that's true even if the other NFL owners ultimately want the Bills to stay in Buffalo, which is the subject of some debate.

 

I suppose the trust could request all bidders to indicate up front that they are willing to sign some sort of long term lease extension (assuming that the trust document clearly authorizes that price-reducing action). But even if it does, I think the NFL would have to approve any actual change or extension of the lease terms. If the reports that the NFL initially resisted approving the current Non-Relocation Agreement are true, the trust may not have the power to require binding long-term commitments (i.e., past 2020) from any of the bidders. Public expressions of willingness to stay - - sure, but legally binding commitments? Maybe not.

 

The other owners probably want a high sale price more than anything else, but for the same bid $$, Darryl would expect them to prefer non-local owners.

 

Then again, Darryl's a moron.

[TheFunPolice]

Here's what worries me - - if I remember correctly, the NFL Commissioner has pretty recently said that the Bills need a new stadium to remain "viable" in WNY. My brother Darryl figures that the other 31 owners would like to see the trend of decreased public financing of new stadiums reversed. Darryl may be slow, but even he can see that non-local ownership groups are likely to have more leverage than Pegula when it comes time to squeeze the state and county for stadium concessions. And that's true even if the other NFL owners ultimately want the Bills to stay in Buffalo, which is the subject of some debate.

 

I suppose the trust could request all bidders to indicate up front that they are willing to sign some sort of long term lease extension (assuming that the trust document clearly authorizes that price-reducing action). But even if it does, I think the NFL would have to approve any actual change or extension of the lease terms. If the reports that the NFL initially resisted approving the current Non-Relocation Agreement are true, the trust may not have the power to require binding long-term commitments (i.e., past 2020) from any of the bidders. Public expressions of willingness to stay - - sure, but legally binding commitments? Maybe not.

 

The other owners probably want a high sale price more than anything else, but for the same bid $$, Darryl would expect them to prefer non-local owners.

 

Then again, Darryl's a moron.

 

Exactly, the NFL has to approve any lease extension. And something tells me that an ironclad "Thou Shalt Not Moveth" extension that locks a new ownership group into RWS for longer than the current lease is not going to go over well. If reports are true, the NFL wasn't keen on the current lease given its non-relocation provisions.

 

They will never move sounds great, but the ownership is going to determine that more than anything else. Sure, the NFL "wants" this team here. I also "wanted" to hit the gym today. But things happen sometimes....

[Kirby Jackson]

I guess it must appear on every page so for the 75,001st time Toronto is not an option!! It isn't now or in the future. The NFL has ZERO say in who they want to own the team. They just confirm them (for the 20,000th time). They look at this as a chance to push a new stadium to raise revenues. Ultimately, the decision is in the trust's hands. The paranoia and conspiracy theories are out of control.