BillnutinHouston Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 I'm guessing that this reason is precisely why they asked the Toronto group to provide stronger assurances that they won't relocate the team. It allows them to keep the group in the running for the sake of competition, while still keeping the specter of relocation in the picture. Precisely.
Mr. WEO Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Ummm...maybe it was created as another opportunity for you to demonstrate your vast knowledge and to act indignant? Jeez, WEO are you that thick? The bio was part of a securities filing by Rogers that gets vetted before with a fine tooth comb by a battery of lawyers. Blaming the secretary is weak sauce. Besides, what secretary comes up with that nugget on their own. THAT'S the story, Chucko. OK--then read Kirby's take-he's plugged in--...same thing. The Bills were never going anywhere, so these threads add nothing new. Any of these moldy old "revelations" about the intentions of the "Toronto Group" are meaningless. Unfounded and unending paranoia is not a "story".
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Life's been unusually hectic, so I am less up to speed than usual on recent developments in the sale process. But here's some food for thought (even if nobody eats it): 1. Unless something has recently changed, this is very much a 2 step process. The eventual winning bidder has to make a first round bid high enough to survive the first cut, and then needs to beat out a few other survivors with his final second round bid. 2. If the second round is conducted like the first round, then Morgan Stanley can seek amendments or increases to second round bids before a winner is chosen. But what if second round bids are a 1 shot deal - - seems unlikely because that doesn't maximize sales price for the trust - - but what if? 3. In that scenario, optimal strategy would be to bid just high enough to survive the first round, which would mask your true intention to bid much higher in round 2. If I was a billionaire (or a multi-millionaire leader of a group), I would sure try to make Pegula underestimate how high he might have to go to beat my final bid. 4. I don't know how high Golisano could go, but I wonder if he purposely waited to see what the minimum required bid would be to get to round two. 5. If Morgan Stanley can conduct a true auction among second round bidders by repeatedly asking them for more until only one bidder is left standing, then there isn't much point in low-balling the first round bid. But if round 2 is a 1 shot deal, I put absolutely zero faith in the idea that somebody who barely survived the round 1 cut can't be the high bidder in round 2. Assuming Pegula has the deepest pockets (not stating that as a fact, just assuming), a lot could depend on how he evaluates what the other round 1 survivors are likely to bid. 6. I'm wary of the round 1 survivors who let it be known that they don't think they can bid high enough to win round 2, or seem glum about their prospects. That may just be intended to mask how high they will ultimately go (again, assuming round 2 is a 1 shot bid deal rather than an ongoing auction).
mannc Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Life's been unusually hectic, so I am less up to speed than usual on recent developments in the sale process. But here's some food for thought (even if nobody eats it): 1. Unless something has recently changed, this is very much a 2 step process. The eventual winning bidder has to make a first round bid high enough to survive the first cut, and then needs to beat out a few other survivors with his final second round bid. 2. If the second round is conducted like the first round, then Morgan Stanley can seek amendments or increases to second round bids before a winner is chosen. But what if second round bids are a 1 shot deal - - seems unlikely because that doesn't maximize sales price for the trust - - but what if? 3. In that scenario, optimal strategy would be to bid just high enough to survive the first round, which would mask your true intention to bid much higher in round 2. If I was a billionaire (or a multi-millionaire leader of a group), I would sure try to make Pegula underestimate how high he might have to go to beat my final bid. 4. I don't know how high Golisano could go, but I wonder if he purposely waited to see what the minimum required bid would be to get to round two. 5. If Morgan Stanley can conduct a true auction among second round bidders by repeatedly asking them for more until only one bidder is left standing, then there isn't much point in low-balling the first round bid. But if round 2 is a 1 shot deal, I put absolutely zero faith in the idea that somebody who barely survived the round 1 cut can't be the high bidder in round 2. Assuming Pegula has the deepest pockets (not stating that as a fact, just assuming), a lot could depend on how he evaluates what the other round 1 survivors are likely to bid. 6. I'm wary of the round 1 survivors who let it be known that they don't think they can bid high enough to win round 2, or seem glum about their prospects. That may just be intended to mask how high they will ultimately go (again, assuming round 2 is a 1 shot bid deal rather than an ongoing auction). As usual ICSWID, you have pounded the nail squarely on the head. I don't think we know nearly as much as we think we know about how this process will unfold. It is a lot like the draft: there is almost no incentive for the participants to tell the truth.
FluffHead Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Life's been unusually hectic, so I am less up to speed than usual on recent developments in the sale process.). Oh please. You can sleep when you're dead.
Hplarrm Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) The bottom line on all of this remains that the NFL owners make more money with franchises in BOTH Buffalo and Toronto than they make having one franchise in one place or the other. The NFL has both consistently expressed or even made failed moves like he WFL to add more franchises. The franchise remaining in Buffalo has already captured 46,000+ season ticket holders, routinely sell another 20,000+ individual tickets to games, has millions from ads from commercials, and has already obtained and is perched to add to 100s millions from various NYS governments. If the team mves, while all of ths can be replicated and then some in the larger Toronto market, why would the NFL simply walk away from this real money. We have already seen in hockey franchises in the same sport can exist here. o In fact the Buffalo franchise not only adds value to the next owner but the entire NFL. Leaving is simply committing to 6 year of sad stories about the NFL killing Buffalo which is simply years of bad press that is not good for selling the product and also the NFL subjecting itself to years of lawsuits and endangering there govt granted exemption from antitrust. THE BUFFALO BILLS WILL REMAIN AN NFL FRANCHISE! Edited August 15, 2014 by Hplarrm
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Oh please. You can sleep when you're dead. Ouch!
Recommended Posts