murra Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I guess I was right... The deal was announced by the Bills about 90 minutes after the NFL’s trade deadline passed. Buffalo (4-1) is coming off its bye week and had expressed interest in acquiring Chiefs tight end Tony Gonzalez, who remained with Kansas City. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I guess I was right... LINK Any talk about what the Bills offered and how it went down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 OK, I've been gone most of the day. Someone do me a solid and catch me up. From a brief glance at the wall, I see the Bills got Tony Gonzalez for McCargo. Very nice trade. Anything else? 490 posts later, and yes you're caught up. You also missed the debate of Sarbanes-Oxley ieatcrayonz initiated. Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Then the Colts and Packers should be considered competitors because they play next week. I think you don't understand that they don't get into the playoffs in the same conference. Even still, I don't think you understand how the NFL tiebreaker procedure works. They basically need to agree to split the games out of conference 50-50 to have the best shot at the playoffs. Look at this thread to understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 490 posts later, and yes you're caught up. You also missed the debate of Sarbanes-Oxley ieatcrayonz initiated. Funny stuff. So, you are suggesting it would be worth my while to go read the parts of the thread that I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I think you don't understand that they don't get into the playoffs in the same conference. Even still, I don't think you understand how the NFL tiebreaker procedure works. They basically need to agree to split the games out of conference 50-50 to have the best shot at the playoffs. Look at this thread to understand them. Heh... if either one loses that game could keep them out of the playoffs. I dont think you understand. Who gets into the playoffs, a 9-7 team or a 10-6 one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Heh... if either one loses that game could keep them out of the playoffs. I dont think you understand. Who gets into the playoffs, a 9-7 team or a 10-6 one? It depends on the other teams in the conference (hence why they are the ones competing for the profit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 So, you are suggesting it would be worth my while to go read the parts of the thread that I missed? I admit, long ago I was reeled in by ieatcrayonz. but when he dropped Sarbanes-Oxley on someone, it was funny stuff. I couldn't tell you where it appeared first, but there were some tense moments earlier as people eagerly awaited Gonzalez news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 It depends on the other teams in the conference (hence why they are the ones competing for the profit). Let me ask you this... Do you really think anyone would care about announcing trades? The assertion that the NFL even falls under sarbanes oxley is very dubious, not to mention any case brought against the NFL because of it would be laughed out of court. I haven't seen any source that points out that the NFL does indeed fall under it. I also haven't seen anything that says the NFL is considered publicly owned. Nevertheless, this debate is completely pointless as no federal official would be stupid enough to go after the NFL for announcing trades late... even if he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Let me ask you this... Do you really think anyone would care about announcing trades? The assertion that the NFL even falls under sarbanes oxley is very dubious, not to mention any case brought against the NFL because of it would be laughed out of court. I haven't seen any source that points out that the NFL does indeed fall under it. I also haven't seen anything that says the NFL is considered publicly owned. Nevertheless, this debate is completely pointless as no federal official would be stupid enough to go after the NFL for announcing trades late... even if he could. Probably not because the US is smart enough to not want to hurt the NFL with all the tax revenue that they bring in to the economy. However, since Canada is trying to get an NFL team, they may try to sue the NFL in American court to try to make a team move to Canada. By the way if you want more info on the Canadian side of Sox crayonz might have some info, he follows the Canadian side of things closer than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Probably not because the US is smart enough to not want to hurt the NFL with allt he tax revenue that they bring in to the economy. However, sicne Canada is trying to get an NFL team, they may try to sue the NFL in American court to try to make a team move to Canada. That suit would get absolutely nowhere as the intentions of the law have nothing to do with the practices of private companies. The sports world has seen numerous supreme court cases where something stupid like sarbanes oxley was ruled to not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 That suit would get absolutely nowhere as the intentions of the law have nothing to do with the practices of private companies. Travis should have incorporated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 "Private companies have virtually no obligation to publicly distribute financial and other strategic information which can be used by its competitors." http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/pnealis.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 "Private companies have virtually no obligation to publicly distribute financial and other strategic information which can be used by its competitors."http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/pnealis.pdf Dude you are missing the point. Entities with anti-trust exemptions have to adhere to the rules of public companies. Even before you get to the Packers thing that seals it. But if you had to go to the fact that the Packers are public, that would also obligate the other teams under the equal protection act of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I would think that the question of whether the Bills fall under SOX seems pretty clearly to be unsettled law. I do not think any regulatory agency or elected official has made the case they should and as such it is simply an unsettled issue. TSW folks can have a real debate on this if they want but the question is not whether SOX covers the NFL (it does not because I know of no one in authority who has asserted this) but whether it should. I do not think so because the whole thing is complicated enough already that another layer or requirements would not add anything to the game or to the debates about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Dude you are missing the point. Entities with anti-trust exemptions have to adhere to the rules of public companies. Even before you get to the Packers thing that seals it. But if you had to go to the fact that the Packers are public, that would also obligate the other teams under the equal protection act of the Constitution. Actually, the SEC pretty clearly states that private companies do not have to disclose information to competitors. Also, I have not been able to find what law states that antitrust exempted companies are treated as publicly traded. I strongly suspect this to be BS, as the NFL does not release financial information consistent with the rules of a publicly traded company. PS: It would not obligate them to do so, since private companies are not put under the same restrictions of public ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Actually, the SEC pretty clearly states that private companies do not have to disclose information to competitors. Also, I have not been able to find what law states that antitrust exempted companies are treated as publicly traded. I strongly suspect this to be BS, as the NFL does not release financial information consistent with the rules of a publicly traded company. PS: It would not obligate them to do so, since private companies are not put under the same restrictions of public ones. When you have an anti-trust exemption, you don't have competitors. Thus, the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Crayonz, do you have any info on the Canadian plan to force a team to Canada via Sox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Crayonz, do you have any info on the Canadian plan to force a team to Canada via Sox? "Canadian plan." Good one. Unless "bumbling through life" just became considered a plan, I don't think we have to worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Actually, the SEC pretty clearly states that private companies do not have to disclose information to competitors. Also, I have not been able to find what law states that antitrust exempted companies are treated as publicly traded. I strongly suspect this to be BS, as the NFL does not release financial information consistent with the rules of a publicly traded company. PS: It would not obligate them to do so, since private companies are not put under the same restrictions of public ones. Hamilton County, OH, tried to sue the B'gals over the very bad stadium deal the previous regime of County Commissioners worked out (1/2 % sales tax increase, bond issuance - refinanced twice so far btw). The suit - by a government entity directed at a team plying their business in a publicly-owned stadium - was to find out if owner Mike Brown falsely claimed financial hardship, his threats to move the team...the old story. And seek a renegotiation of the contract terms. It's a real sweetheart deal for Brown - he pays for the field, everything else is gratis, he has a guaranteed minimum gate, if a certain number of other stadiums get improvements (such as the RWS new jumbotron, more luxo-boxes), taxpayers have to foot the bill for Mikie to get the improvements, and so on. It would have been interesting - the NFL's lawyers fought very hard against the possibility of a team's disclosure. ""When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always twenty years behind the times." - This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until the attribution can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic." http://www.twainquotes.com/Cincinnati.html There's truth to that...a judge finally pointed out that the County's suit couldn't go forward because of Statute of Limitation. BTW - the big pusher for the deal, former County Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus, landed a rather nice-paying job as the B'gal's Director of Business Development... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts