Round 3: Sale of the team

[Go Kiko go]

Now, before all of you jump down my ass, I'm simply asking the same question that hasn't been answered, and saying the trust won't sell to a group that wants to move the team is NOT answering the question.

 

Again, I think the question is, "is their wording in the trust that prohibits relocation or is it just in the lease"

I agree to some extent; many of the posts I have read that claim that the trust won't sell to a relocating buyer have just been ipse dixit.

 

Claims that the trust won't sell to a relocating buyer appear to rest on a few possible grounds:

 

(i) connections that posters have to people involved in the sale process (such as Kirby's post a few posts ago: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/170168-round-3-sale-of-the-team/page__st__160#entry3230544);

 

(ii) statements made by people involved in the sale process that have been publicly reported; or

 

(iii) assessments that posters have made of the practical difficulties that would be involved in moving the team, which are then used to infer that (a) Ralph Wilson imposed conditions on the trust that limit the trust's ability to sell the team to a relocating buyer, or (b) the trustees, because of these difficulties, would not sell to a relocating buyer (such as in this post: http://forums.twobil...20#entry3229399 and this one: http://forums.twobil...00#entry3229392).

Edited August 31, 2014 by Go Kiko go

[TheFunPolice]

Not to derail the thread, but how amazing is it that we have people who know the ins and outs of a very private trust and sale process, yet nobody can tell you how Kiko injured that knee?

 

What was he doing to tear his ACL working out on his own?!

[bbb]

Not to derail the thread, but how amazing is it that we have people who know the ins and outs of a very private trust and sale process, yet nobody can tell you how Kiko injured that knee?

 

What was he doing to tear his ACL working out on his own?!

 

I heard he saved his drowning nephew.

[Mike in Horseheads]

Not to derail the thread, but how amazing is it that we have people who know the ins and outs of a very private trust and sale process, yet nobody can tell you how Kiko injured that knee?

 

What was he doing to tear his ACL working out on his own?!

Jumping out a window with a copy of the trust.

[Mike in Horseheads]

Logic - higher bidders from LA are scared off because of the remaining years on the lease - for the 1000th time its the Lease in place with 6 years remaining that is keeping out of town bidders away NOT a directive from RW to the trust to only sell to local people.

We fans are in a good spot because this transfer occurred so early in the lease which is keeping this from a true highest bidder wins situation. Its now highest bidder wins who is also willing to not move the team for 6 years.

 

If non-relocation was indeed the top priority over more money - then a look at JAx sale in 2011 at 780 million...allow a 5-10% inflation and you hit a fair value near 900 million - offer to a known local owner like Pegula and deal is done - team stays and the family made out well.

All actions indicate the TOP priority is to make RW and NFL owners most money possible on the sale - if it happens to be to a local owner who keeps the team here - thats fine too.

Or do you think a Pegula would balk at a $900 million offer?

 

A quick reminder to how these folks think. Remember when we were on the brink of a Superbowl trophy where maybe 1 more addition could put us over the top and win a trophy all us fans would die for?

Then RW and his buddy Littman (on the committee) cheap out and we lose all pro LT Will Wolford over maybe 2 million dollars. At the time RW was clearing perhaps 25 million/year in profit. Littman and Ralph chose to take the 25m profit and no wolford over the 23m profit and keep wolford locked up.

This is how they operate. 2 million more for 1 person and screw the million fans who would die for the SB win.

Yes Colts put a clause in contract difficult to match - this decision (as told by Polian) was done a year earlier when Polian asked Littman to lock up Wilford before he hits FA market and open us up to a clause like the one we didnt match

Inflation is not 5-10%, The Browns and Dolphins sold for over 1 million, and what ONE player would have put us over the top and won a SB?

[ChevyVanMiller]

 

 

I heard he saved his drowning nephew.

 

Okay, that actually made me laugh out loud.

[The Wiz]

For the 1,000,000,000,000th time THE TRUST WILL NOT SELL TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO MOVE THE TEAM!!!!!!!! This is like Groundhog Day. Every time a new piece of information comes out a certain group of people believe that the trust is going abandon their marching orders and sell the team to a group that will move them to Toronto. That just isn't the case.

 

Also, if you want to post the doom and gloom stuff please understand the process (ie there is no such thing as a $400M buyout). Instead of spending the time telling everyone how the team is gone and we are all idiots, use that 5 minutes to read the lease and non relocation agreement. There has been some great work done on the process by John Kryk, Tim Graham and our very own John Warwow.

But can pegula own the bills and the sabres?

[dollars 2 donuts]

No one knows how much Pegula is worth because he has a lot more land. Currently worth about $5 billion CASH, probably twice as much cash as the entire Toronto group, but also has other assets he could sell for billions. Simply put he is filthy rich. He said it himself, If he needs more he can sell more or drill.

 

But means very little, this is not bidding war unless Toronto proves they wouldnt move the team. And common sense tells you why wouldnt Toronto move thee team. I have never believed Toronto was really in this.

The reason is how much his assets (primarily land to drill on) have been appreciating like crazy since that report. I have heard over $6B but even if it is the $3.3B (or whatever is reported he has plenty of $).

 

Guys, seriously, if he is worth as much as you guys say then, if I may quote the late john Butler, this is one fat man dancin' a jig. I'd love to be wrong and I hope you are right.

 

Side trivia: a lollipop if any of you guys remember who butler was talking about when he said the above? no cheating, but I can't stop you if you do...and there is no lollipop.

 

 

 

[bbb]

Okay, that actually made me laugh out loud.

 

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Leland McIlroy

 

So where's my lollipop?

Edited August 31, 2014 by RJ (not THAT RJ)

[Hplarrm]

 

 

Logic - higher bidders from LA are scared off because of the remaining years on the lease - for the 1000th time its the Lease in place with 6 years remaining that is keeping out of town bidders away NOT a directive from RW to the trust to only sell to local people.

We fans are in a good spot because this transfer occurred so early in the lease which is keeping this from a true highest bidder wins situation. Its now highest bidder wins who is also willing to not move the team for 6 years.

 

If non-relocation was indeed the top priority over more money - then a look at JAx sale in 2011 at 780 million...allow a 5-10% inflation and you hit a fair value near 900 million - offer to a known local owner like Pegula and deal is done - team stays and the family made out well.

All actions indicate the TOP priority is to make RW and NFL owners most money possible on the sale - if it happens to be to a local owner who keeps the team here - thats fine too.

Or do you think a Pegula would balk at a $900 million offer?

 

A quick reminder to how these folks think. Remember when we were on the brink of a Superbowl trophy where maybe 1 more addition could put us over the top and win a trophy all us fans would die for?

Then RW and his buddy Littman (on the committee) cheap out and we lose all pro LT Will Wolford over maybe 2 million dollars. At the time RW was clearing perhaps 25 million/year in profit. Littman and Ralph chose to take the 25m profit and no wolford over the 23m profit and keep wolford locked up.

This is how they operate. 2 million more for 1 person and screw the million fans who would die for the SB win.

Yes Colts put a clause in contract difficult to match - this decision (as told by Polian) was done a year earlier when Polian asked Littman to lock up Wilford before he hits FA market and open us up to a clause like the one we didnt match

The actual logic here is this:

 

More money and non-relocation are actually the same thing for the true decision-maker her which is the NFL as a whole and is NOT simply the Trust, or any individual team owner and bidder.

 

Many people (and apparently you) make a correct assumption that the ultimate decision will be made for the option which gives the decision-maker the most money. This is true!

 

However, the mistake for your logical conclusion is not understanding that different options deliver different levels of money to the NFL as whole (the ultimate decision-maker in this process) or to the individual seller (The Trust in the Bills case) and the highest bidder (who definitely maximizes the $ for the Bills but MAY not also maximize the $ received by the NFL.

 

To understand this, first take a step back and think about this logically rather than worry about the real world specifics in the Bills case (yet, because when you look at what is really happening so far the logic of the case I am making best explains this situation as we know it).

 

It is clear that the Trust pretty simply makes the most money for itself by selling to the highest bidder and getting out of dodge with as much money as it can hang onto after capital gains and estate taxes.

 

However, lets say the highest the highest bidder while giving the Trust the desired (and some have even claimed required) tons of money where does this leave the NFL. Lets say the highest bidder is someone anathema to the NFL either because he is an idiot or even worse hurts the product because his riches come from some unpopular activity (such as the big buck guy is some Saudi Arabian oil magnate who is actually an uncle of Osana bin Laden).

 

Under the high bidder or Trust rules theory , the NFL would have no choice because what the owner wants is what rules.

 

No.

 

The NFL is not going to be forced to do something which huts its business merely because an individual owner says so )in fact we saw an example of this in another sports league, the NBA where the other owners grouped together and forced the owner of the Clippers pretty quickly to sell his franchise.

 

Its even more clear cut in the NFL than in the NBA where Ralph Wilson (and thus the Trust) have agreed contractually that any new owner the Trust sales to must win the votes of 75% of the other owners or no deal.

 

The NFL has an effective veto over who owns the Bills.

 

Do you understand that the NFL is ultimate decision-maker here? Do you understand that the profit of the whole NFL trumps (not Donald but literally) the profit-making for an individual team. In essence, the Trust has already agreed by contract to give up its individual free market ability to do whatever they want because the individual teams long ago figured out that they can make more $ individually in a structure governed by the social compact of NFL team owners working together collaboratively.

 

The big economic shift in the NFL began way back when with Pete Rozelle championing such anti-individual reward ideas such as giving the worst teams the highest draft picks. In a traditional free market the better performers would be rewarded by attracting the better players to their winning teams, the bad teams would simply die off in the free market unless they got better in order to attract better players.

 

Instead of pursuing free market competition as the mechanism for improvement the NFL instead installed a draft/ FA, and waiver bidding system which rewards the worst performing teams on the field, but does help the overall product maintain equality. In fact, if there was a real free market which operates in the real world by roughly 50% of businesses going out of business in their first 5 years, the NFL simply could not operate and the true cash cow, the TV networks would not obligate the money they give to the individual owners.

 

The real problem for the traditional owner model types came with the mid-80s labor dispute. The team owners so effectively destroyed the AFL-CIO types who lypes who led the NFLPA, that a talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw linked up with some smart lawyers and instead threatened to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining agent.

 

The team owners then realized that they needed to abandon any pretense of a traditional free market and signed the CBA which essentially broadedned the social compact which controlled the NFL tp include the NFLPA as partners.

 

The TV nets then stepped forward and signed long term deals which gave the owners even more money as expansion of the social contract gave labor peace.

 

The a few years CBA then called for renegotian after a few years, and even before negotiation Upshaw announce that the new deal would now extend the salary cap to all gross revenues and that the player share reflected in the salary cap would need to start with a 6.

 

The final deal was negotiated by Paul Tagliabue and the NFLPA hired lawyers and gave the players 60.5% of the take (arguably making thm not only partners but the majority partners of the NFL. In the end, the NFL accepted this deal over the objections of only Ralph and the GB Packers. The 75& threshold was agreed to within this context.

 

It matters what the Trust wants, but only 1/32 nd of the ultimate decision.

 

As far as the JBJ group, this whole thing was a joke to those of us who feel we understand the economics here. For the Trust it might give them the biggest $ to take a bid from the CA group. However, for the other 31/32 that really controls this thing, the best fiscal deal is to have franchises in BOTH Buffalo and Toronto.

 

The NFL not only wants to get more money they do not give away money. If the Bills left Buffalo they would be walking away from 45,000+ season ticket holders, the 25,000+ that routinely buy individual tickets, the millions from WNY advertisers, and 100s millons in corporate welfare which would not go to ON.

 

Why throw this away when your avowed longterm plan is to expand and you can have BOTH Buffalo and ON momey.

 

This team ain't gpoin no where

[stuvian]

Oh, we're halfway there OOOhhh Survived Bon Jovi's scare

[THE GUY YELLING BEHIND YOU]

 

The actual logic here is this:

 

More money and non-relocation are actually the same thing for the true decision-maker her which is the NFL as a whole and is NOT simply the Trust, or any individual team owner and bidder.

 

Many people (and apparently you) make a correct assumption that the ultimate decision will be made for the option which gives the decision-maker the most money. This is true!

 

However, the mistake for your logical conclusion is not understanding that different options deliver different levels of money to the NFL as whole (the ultimate decision-maker in this process) or to the individual seller (The Trust in the Bills case) and the highest bidder (who definitely maximizes the $ for the Bills but MAY not also maximize the $ received by the NFL.

 

To understand this, first take a step back and think about this logically rather than worry about the real world specifics in the Bills case (yet, because when you look at what is really happening so far the logic of the case I am making best explains this situation as we know it).

 

It is clear that the Trust pretty simply makes the most money for itself by selling to the highest bidder and getting out of dodge with as much money as it can hang onto after capital gains and estate taxes.

 

However, lets say the highest the highest bidder while giving the Trust the desired (and some have even claimed required) tons of money where does this leave the NFL. Lets say the highest bidder is someone anathema to the NFL either because he is an idiot or even worse hurts the product because his riches come from some unpopular activity (such as the big buck guy is some Saudi Arabian oil magnate who is actually an uncle of Osana bin Laden).

 

Under the high bidder or Trust rules theory , the NFL would have no choice because what the owner wants is what rules.

 

No.

 

The NFL is not going to be forced to do something which huts its business merely because an individual owner says so )in fact we saw an example of this in another sports league, the NBA where the other owners grouped together and forced the owner of the Clippers pretty quickly to sell his franchise.

 

Its even more clear cut in the NFL than in the NBA where Ralph Wilson (and thus the Trust) have agreed contractually that any new owner the Trust sales to must win the votes of 75% of the other owners or no deal.

 

The NFL has an effective veto over who owns the Bills.

 

Do you understand that the NFL is ultimate decision-maker here? Do you understand that the profit of the whole NFL trumps (not Donald but literally) the profit-making for an individual team. In essence, the Trust has already agreed by contract to give up its individual free market ability to do whatever they want because the individual teams long ago figured out that they can make more $ individually in a structure governed by the social compact of NFL team owners working together collaboratively.

 

The big economic shift in the NFL began way back when with Pete Rozelle championing such anti-individual reward ideas such as giving the worst teams the highest draft picks. In a traditional free market the better performers would be rewarded by attracting the better players to their winning teams, the bad teams would simply die off in the free market unless they got better in order to attract better players.

 

Instead of pursuing free market competition as the mechanism for improvement the NFL instead installed a draft/ FA, and waiver bidding system which rewards the worst performing teams on the field, but does help the overall product maintain equality. In fact, if there was a real free market which operates in the real world by roughly 50% of businesses going out of business in their first 5 years, the NFL simply could not operate and the true cash cow, the TV networks would not obligate the money they give to the individual owners.

 

The real problem for the traditional owner model types came with the mid-80s labor dispute. The team owners so effectively destroyed the AFL-CIO types who lypes who led the NFLPA, that a talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw linked up with some smart lawyers and instead threatened to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining agent.

 

The team owners then realized that they needed to abandon any pretense of a traditional free market and signed the CBA which essentially broadedned the social compact which controlled the NFL tp include the NFLPA as partners.

 

The TV nets then stepped forward and signed long term deals which gave the owners even more money as expansion of the social contract gave labor peace.

 

The a few years CBA then called for renegotian after a few years, and even before negotiation Upshaw announce that the new deal would now extend the salary cap to all gross revenues and that the player share reflected in the salary cap would need to start with a 6.

 

The final deal was negotiated by Paul Tagliabue and the NFLPA hired lawyers and gave the players 60.5% of the take (arguably making thm not only partners but the majority partners of the NFL. In the end, the NFL accepted this deal over the objections of only Ralph and the GB Packers. The 75& threshold was agreed to within this context.

 

It matters what the Trust wants, but only 1/32 nd of the ultimate decision.

 

As far as the JBJ group, this whole thing was a joke to those of us who feel we understand the economics here. For the Trust it might give them the biggest $ to take a bid from the CA group. However, for the other 31/32 that really controls this thing, the best fiscal deal is to have franchises in BOTH Buffalo and Toronto.

 

The NFL not only wants to get more money they do not give away money. If the Bills left Buffalo they would be walking away from 45,000+ season ticket holders, the 25,000+ that routinely buy individual tickets, the millions from WNY advertisers, and 100s millons in corporate welfare which would not go to ON.

 

Why throw this away when your avowed longterm plan is to expand and you can have BOTH Buffalo and ON momey.

 

This team ain't gpoin no where

 

I was going to say the same thing. But, Stayin'

[dollars 2 donuts]

Leland McIlroy

 

So where's my lollipop?

 

 

RJ, nicely done, correct!!

 

Lollipop to be presented immediately subsequent to the Bills' Super Bowl victory!

[Who is Yuri?]

Where has there even been an estimate over that amount? I thinker a safer estimate is that he is at about 3.3 billion.

 

 

 

No, I would love that to be true and no worries as we are all hoping for the same thing.

 

I don't understand, though, how some people over the last few weeks have previously done math, wherein he's worth so much, sells an asset that already had value, and then some think that it is brand new net worth.

 

If part of my worth is a $50,000 car and I sell it for $50,000 I am definitely more liquid, but I am still worth the same.

 

In no news report did I ever see that that $1.75 billion land sale started out as, say $200 million or so, in equity. I know he sold it for 1.75. I just don't know what it was valued at before he sold it.

 

Thank you very much for this. I'd like to add that some people think that, because there was a 1.75 billion dollar sale, all of that money went to Pegula. Silly.

[Kelly the Dog]

Thank you very much for this. I'd like to add that some people think that, because there was a 1.75 billion dollar sale, all of that money went to Pegula. Silly.

And how do you know much Pegula is actually worth? Because you read an estimate in notoriously wrong Forbes magazine? Equally as silly.

[Who is Yuri?]

I don't know Pegula's net worth... but I do find the ever inflating worship a gas tycoon for his presumed net worth to be utterly disgusting and pathetic, even if it is fueled by a dim-witted paranoia that the team will leave.

[MichFan]

I find public displays of jealousy to be disgusting and pathetic.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

RJ, nicely done, correct!!

 

Lollipop to be presented immediately subsequent to the Bills' Super Bowl victory!

 

Sweet. Now I have something else to look forward too!

[billykaykay]

The actual logic here is this:

 

More money and non-relocation are actually the same thing for the true decision-maker her which is the NFL as a whole and is NOT simply the Trust, or any individual team owner and bidder.

 

Many people (and apparently you) make a correct assumption that the ultimate decision will be made for the option which gives the decision-maker the most money. This is true!

 

However, the mistake for your logical conclusion is not understanding that different options deliver different levels of money to the NFL as whole (the ultimate decision-maker in this process) or to the individual seller (The Trust in the Bills case) and the highest bidder (who definitely maximizes the $ for the Bills but MAY not also maximize the $ received by the NFL.

 

To understand this, first take a step back and think about this logically rather than worry about the real world specifics in the Bills case (yet, because when you look at what is really happening so far the logic of the case I am making best explains this situation as we know it).

 

It is clear that the Trust pretty simply makes the most money for itself by selling to the highest bidder and getting out of dodge with as much money as it can hang onto after capital gains and estate taxes.

 

However, lets say the highest the highest bidder while giving the Trust the desired (and some have even claimed required) tons of money where does this leave the NFL. Lets say the highest bidder is someone anathema to the NFL either because he is an idiot or even worse hurts the product because his riches come from some unpopular activity (such as the big buck guy is some Saudi Arabian oil magnate who is actually an uncle of Osana bin Laden).

 

Under the high bidder or Trust rules theory , the NFL would have no choice because what the owner wants is what rules.

 

No.

 

The NFL is not going to be forced to do something which huts its business merely because an individual owner says so )in fact we saw an example of this in another sports league, the NBA where the other owners grouped together and forced the owner of the Clippers pretty quickly to sell his franchise.

 

Its even more clear cut in the NFL than in the NBA where Ralph Wilson (and thus the Trust) have agreed contractually that any new owner the Trust sales to must win the votes of 75% of the other owners or no deal.

 

The NFL has an effective veto over who owns the Bills.

 

Do you understand that the NFL is ultimate decision-maker here? Do you understand that the profit of the whole NFL trumps (not Donald but literally) the profit-making for an individual team. In essence, the Trust has already agreed by contract to give up its individual free market ability to do whatever they want because the individual teams long ago figured out that they can make more $ individually in a structure governed by the social compact of NFL team owners working together collaboratively.

 

The big economic shift in the NFL began way back when with Pete Rozelle championing such anti-individual reward ideas such as giving the worst teams the highest draft picks. In a traditional free market the better performers would be rewarded by attracting the better players to their winning teams, the bad teams would simply die off in the free market unless they got better in order to attract better players.

 

Instead of pursuing free market competition as the mechanism for improvement the NFL instead installed a draft/ FA, and waiver bidding system which rewards the worst performing teams on the field, but does help the overall product maintain equality. In fact, if there was a real free market which operates in the real world by roughly 50% of businesses going out of business in their first 5 years, the NFL simply could not operate and the true cash cow, the TV networks would not obligate the money they give to the individual owners.

 

The real problem for the traditional owner model types came with the mid-80s labor dispute. The team owners so effectively destroyed the AFL-CIO types who lypes who led the NFLPA, that a talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw linked up with some smart lawyers and instead threatened to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining agent.

 

The team owners then realized that they needed to abandon any pretense of a traditional free market and signed the CBA which essentially broadedned the social compact which controlled the NFL tp include the NFLPA as partners.

 

The TV nets then stepped forward and signed long term deals which gave the owners even more money as expansion of the social contract gave labor peace.

 

The a few years CBA then called for renegotian after a few years, and even before negotiation Upshaw announce that the new deal would now extend the salary cap to all gross revenues and that the player share reflected in the salary cap would need to start with a 6.

 

The final deal was negotiated by Paul Tagliabue and the NFLPA hired lawyers and gave the players 60.5% of the take (arguably making thm not only partners but the majority partners of the NFL. In the end, the NFL accepted this deal over the objections of only Ralph and the GB Packers. The 75& threshold was agreed to within this context.

 

It matters what the Trust wants, but only 1/32 nd of the ultimate decision.

 

As far as the JBJ group, this whole thing was a joke to those of us who feel we understand the economics here. For the Trust it might give them the biggest $ to take a bid from the CA group. However, for the other 31/32 that really controls this thing, the best fiscal deal is to have franchises in BOTH Buffalo and Toronto.

 

The NFL not only wants to get more money they do not give away money. If the Bills left Buffalo they would be walking away from 45,000+ season ticket holders, the 25,000+ that routinely buy individual tickets, the millions from WNY advertisers, and 100s millons in corporate welfare which would not go to ON.

 

Why throw this away when your avowed longterm plan is to expand and you can have BOTH Buffalo and ON momey.

 

This team ain't gpoin no where

I thought that the 2 people objecting to the 60.5% labor contract were Ralph & Paul Brown.