ChevyVanMiller Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I read with great interest the Buffalo News article on the different scenarios to keep the Bills in Buffalo after Ralph's demise. Aside from the fact that I'm sure someone from TSW will take Ralph out with an icepick in 2010 if he's still alive (read the article to find out about the Inheritance Tax loophole) it seems to me that there's really just one simple fix to the problem. Mary Wilson (nearly 30 years younger than Ralph - way to get 'er done Ralph!) can assume ownership of the team when Ralph dies and not pay the incredible taxes that otherwise would be charged. The News article said that because of Ralph's public declarations that he doesn't want this to happen, it's a longshot at best. Schumer, Russert, Golisano and everyone else who wants to keep the team here need to get Ralph and Mary in a room and convince them otherwise. The sales pitch to Ralph should be that it will cement his legend in WNY for all time. If he doesn't do it his 50 years of ownership will be washed away when the moving vans to LA leave One Bills Drive. The pitch to Mary should be, "We'll set up a management team and you'll need do nothing more than be a figure head and assume your rightful role as the first lady of Buffalo." The clock is ticking, once Ralph's heart stops keeping time with it, it will be too late. Mary, Mary must you be so contrary?
Mike32282 Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I was thinking the same thing. It kills me how set Ralph is in his ways. There are a bunch of things he can do to ensure that the Buffalo Bills stay in Western NY but he has too big of an ego to do that and doesn't want his wife to own the team for some reason.
nucci Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I was thinking the same thing. It kills me how set Ralph is in his ways. There are a bunch of things he can do to ensure that the Buffalo Bills stay in Western NY but he has too big of an ego to do that and doesn't want his wife to own the team for some reason. His wife has stated she does not want to own the team. I'm sure his family wants to sell, cash out and move on. Can not blame them for that.
Gordio Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I was thinking the same thing. It kills me how set Ralph is in his ways. There are a bunch of things he can do to ensure that the Buffalo Bills stay in Western NY but he has too big of an ego to do that and doesn't want his wife to own the team for some reason. I have been thinking of that all along. She is obviously interested in the bills. Why would'nt she want to own them? & before someone says, $800 million reasons why, Im sure she will have enough money & live a rather comfortable life even without selling the bills.
Albany,n.y. Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 He wants his daughters to get the money, not his current wife.
Honda Rider Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 The BILLS are gone...history...5 years max[/b]...as I said yesterday. Just read the Buffalo News stories on 5-21-08 from David Robinson and Mark Gaughan. They point out the reasons why the Bills are gone. The NFL and the owners with their rising player contracts and greed for profit (not to mention the cost of buying one of the teams) will drive the Bills right out of Buffalo and into Toronto. How does the "Toronto Bills" sound? Go ahead, keep your head in the sand, ignore the real facts and you'll be whining like a 2 year old when ALL the games are played on Canadian soil. I've been a BILLS fan since 1960 and attended many games at The Rockpile before movig away to play Navy during the Viet Nam era. I still attend Bills games in Buffalo and other cities when I have a chance. When the Bills move, I will send all my Bills stuff to their new address, get rid of my B1LLS license plate and give up on the NFL forever. I'd cancel my NFL Ticket if the wife wasn't such a Colts fan (plus I still love watchoing the Dullfish lose). The NFL is about to screw every Bills fan in the world without even a kiss good-bye.
Dr. Fong Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I was thinking the other day about scenarios to keep the Bills in Buffalo. Maybe I'm naive or just plain wrong, but would this be feasible? Build a new stadium in Niagara Falls and rename the team the Buffalo Bills of Niagara to try to tap into some sense of regionalism. Do you think this would fly?
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the inheritance tax is the main reason he is not selling. He would get taxed twice if he sells now. Why oh why cant we just have a flat tax.
stuckincincy Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the inheritance tax is the main reason he is not selling. He would get taxed twice if he sells now. Why oh why cant we just have a flat tax. Because a flat tax removes the power of 535 people to favor or destroy this one or that one, removes the power to punish or reward in exchange for money to get re-elected? Can't totally blame the Gang of 535, though. Huge numbers of voters are adept and wise to the fact that their votes extract $$$ from others, to their benefit. All it takes is an hour of inconvenience, once a year.
Rubes Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 The sales pitch to Ralph should be that it will cement his legend in WNY for all time. That's a sales pitch? Oy. I'm with ya on this one, but it's not really a tough choice between cementing your husband's legend and $850 million dollars, minus taxes.
LabattBlue Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Ralph knows that if he does not take any measures NOW to ensure that the team remains in Buffalo after his death, the team will go to the high bidder and that won't be anyone willing to keep the team in Buffalo. F*** Ralph and F*** his chances of going to the HoF. If this is what he wants his legacy to be, then so be it.
Mike32282 Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Ralph knows that if he does not take any measures NOW to ensure that the team remains in Buffalo after his death, the team will go to the high bidder and that won't be anyone willing to keep the team in Buffalo. F*** Ralph and F*** his chances of going to the HoF. If this is what he wants his legacy to be, then so be it. Good post! And it's depressing as hell too.
BillnutinHouston Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Why is everyone worried? Jim Kelly already told us he's gonna save us.
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the inheritance tax is the main reason he is not selling. He would get taxed twice if he sells now. Why oh why cant we just have a flat tax. No, the cap gains tax is the reason he is not selling. He (or more to the point, his children) cannot avoid the estate tax. That is unless he dies in 2010. Once again...Ralph will not sell the team before he dies.
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the inheritance tax is the main reason he is not selling. He would get taxed twice if he sells now. Why oh why cant we just have a flat tax. Because a flat tax benefits those like Ralph and screws what I suspect is the majority of the people who read this board. All of this moving talk is misguided. If the Bills are going anywhere, it's Toronto. It's a rich, rabid and virgin market. LA has had several teams (Rams, Chargers and Raiders) and lost them all. People in LA don't care about the NFL - there's too much else to do. The most likely team to move to LA is the Raiders. Toronto, by virtue of the "series" is Bills territory. No team is going there except the Bills, and if the Bills go anywhere it will be Toronto.
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Because a flat tax benefits those like Ralph and screws what I suspect is the majority of the people who read this board. It does??
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 22, 2008 Posted May 22, 2008 The Bills moving is NOT necessarily a done deal for many reasons, despite Ralph and Mary's refusal to help us Bills fans out: 1. The true strength of the Kelly/Kemp/Golisano/Rich/Wegman/etc. financial coalition is unknown to the public. 2. There is a substantial league relocation fee that needs to be factored into an out-of-town owner trying to move the Bills. 3. Schumer has significant clout over the NFL's Congressionally sanctioned business privileges. 4. Who's to say that Goodell won't step in to prevent relocation like Tagliabue did with Benson's Saints? That was a case where avoiding bad publicity overrode the NFL's need for immediate financial gratification. 5. In the case of Toronto, the CFL and Canadian government may step in to block NFL encroachment like they've done in the past. 6. In the case of LA, nothing will happen until they get the issue of a new stadium in order. Once they do, ANY team - not just the Bills - is fair game. The most likely owner to jump on this financial opportunity would be Wayne Weaver, whose Jags are in a marginally better TV market than Buffalo (#40 in size vs. Buffalo's #46...which does not even include Rochester or CNY or Toronto), have 35 years less of history in their city than the Bills, and can't sell out games despite a consistently competitive on-field product. 7. Playing in Toronto for 1-2 regular season games per year may be the monetary injection this WNY market needs to stay competitive. 8. The potential economic recession in the coming months/years, combined with a potentially new CBA that helps the small market teams, may even the economic playing field for the small clubs vs. big clubs.
SectionC3 Posted May 22, 2008 Posted May 22, 2008 It does?? Absolutely. The same logic is somewhat relevant to any conversation involving a national sales tax. One of the Steve Forbes plans that was floated some years back was a flat tax with no deductions. Not a very good idea for, say, middle class homeowners, people with kids, those in their mid-20s with student loans (who make less than $62,000), etc. Even if certain deductions under a flat tax are available, the critical question is where the threshold lies. In other words, if the flat tax threshold is 20%, it's possible that the federal tax liability for some working class could actually increase. (I'll plead a little ignorance here - I don't know what the current low brackets are.) Truly problematic, though, is the reduction for those on the higher end of the scale. If your income is sufficient to allow you to reach one of the graduated steps where you're paying in the vicinity of 30%, you're getting a huge reduction and reaping a huge benefit if your liability for monies at what are now higher graduated steps is reduced to 20%. How is that lost tax revenue made up? Possibly through taxpayers in the lower to mid brackets who lose some deduction benefits. Or, if you're George W. Bush, you just borrow more money from China. In other words, typical of other Republican red herrings (let's talk about gay marriage instead of addressing important national security issues, like where is Osama bin Laden, or why did we start a war with a country that faked having chemical weapons to keep the real tyrant [iran] at bay and therefore allow that tyrant to bluster about nuclear weapons, send shivers through traders of a certain dinosaur-based speculative commodity and wreak havoc with our economy!!), the flat tax is, plain and simple, just another ill-conceived idea.
Recommended Posts