ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Just like a lot of coaches use the same chart to determine whether to go for 2 point conversions, I think a lot of front offices use the draft pick trade value chart to get at least a rough sense of whether a proposed trade is fair. But who cares what I think - - what does the actual history of draft pick trades show? You may think the chart is hogwash, but the article at the link below makes a pretty compelling case that the chart gives a reasonably accurate estimate of what a team might be able to get in return for trading down (at least for trading down in the first round and getting only draft picks from the same year in return): http://www.buffaloru...fl-draft-trades I suppose one weakness in the article's analysis is that there haven't been a great number of trade downs from as high as pick #3 so the data is a little sparse, but overall I was pretty surprised at how often actual trades were made at close to what the draft chart predicts as fair value. You could also make a case for the idea that the chart requires teams looking to trade up to give up more to get there than the value of what they get in return- - but that doesn't mean teams don't use the chart. The data analyzed in the article seems to indicate that teams do in fact use the chart. Whether it makes sense is a totally separate issue. I can also see how it would be pretty useful to have some sort of trade value chart to help you quickly analyze proposed trades when you are on the clock and almost out of time to make your pick when a trade offer comes in on your war room phone. Jimmie Johnson is widely credited with creating the chart, but if you read the comments posted at the above link, apparently some people think it was somebody else in the Dallas organization when JJ was the head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league, and it isn't run by rocket scientists. Just like a lot of coaches use the same chart to determine whether to go for 2 point conversions, I think a lot of front offices use the draft pick trade value chart to get at least a rough sense of whether a proposed trade is fair. But who cares what I think - - what does the actual history of draft pick trades show? You may think the chart is hogwash, but the article at the link below makes a pretty compelling case that the chart gives a reasonably accurate estimate of what a team might be able to get in return for trading down (at least for trading down in the first round and getting only draft picks from the same year in return): http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/2/21/2004303/dispelling-myths-about-nfl-draft-trades I suppose one weakness in the article's analysis is that there haven't been a great number of trade downs from as high as pick #3 so the data is a little sparse, but overall I was pretty surprised at how often actual trades were made at close to what the draft chart predicts as fair value. I can also see how it would be pretty useful to have some sort of trade value chart to help you quickly analyze proposed trades when you are on the clock and almost out of time to make your pick when a trade offer comes in on your war room phone.

I can't remember where I saw or heard it (it was quite a while ago), but some NFL head or defensive coach once stated in an interview that he liked to interview college QBs that he expected to be drafted by other teams so he could find out more about how they made in-game decisions. His theory was that he might be defending against them in the not-so-distant future, and he thought he could create more effective defensive game plans if he knew what they liked to key on. Obviously those keys would likely change with time and pro coaching, and might be somewhat observable from future pro game film study anyway, but it struck me as a pretty imaginative use of the interview process. Must be nice to already have enough talent on your roster so that you can use the limited number of allowed pre-draft visits for such a purpose. Sorry I can't remember which coach it was, but it sure sounds like something a defensive-oriented coach like Belicek might do. I had often heard about pre-draft interviews being used to mask true draft intentions, but it was the only time I have ever heard an NFL coach talk about using pre-draft interviews to try to gain a future in-season advantage by learning more about a player that a team had absolutely no intention of drafting. On the other hand, maybe the defensive coach I saw interviewed worked for a team that really did need a QB, and the media interview was itself part of a smokescreen to hide his team's actual QB interest. Who knows? It's mainly smoke and mirrors this time of year.

A relative of mine subscribed for a year but did not renew. He said the service worked fine, and the price was good, but he found it difficult to wait for the broadcast to be available, and sometimes wound up going out to watch the games in real time over a meal elsewhere. Before signing up, make sure you understand exactly how long after the game ends that you can start watching it. I have a vague recollection (not sure) of being told that it wasn't available the minute the game ended (next day?), and hearing the final score before he could watch the game sometimes took some of the fun out of watching the rebroadcast. BTW, he has FIOS, so his internet connection is very fast - - don't know if the experience would be different with a slower broadband connection.

Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html : "The mediation ... is non-binding."

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about. Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml# The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me): "(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation." While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding. The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but here's what his agent Tom Condon's sworn declaration says about how the NFL's conduct is harming Manning (see paragraphs 3-6 and 12-14): http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00639/119126/9/

OK, but just remember, everybody's trying to rob the same barge, so post a couple of guards on deck.

Fair points. I can see how an expectation to get playing time would be important to a free agent, expecially if a guy had talent but was stuck behind a really good vet on another team. We probably have a better chance at getting an up and coming, relatively young free agent, as opposed to an established star player. I haven't seen a free agent list.

My take on the situation is the exact opposite - - here's why: 1. With occasional exceptions, the Bills have generally not been big spenders in the free agent market. While peoople who live in Buffalo certainly can make a case for it being a good place to live, most of the country, who only know what the media tells them about the place, don't share that view. While I'm hopeful that we can end the play-off drought soon, our team won 4 games last season. If you are a good player and have several offers, why would you choose to play for a team with a bad record in a city that gets bad press? Sure, you can point out exceptions in specific cases where free agents have come to Buffalo, but I think we are at a competitve disadvantage in the free agent market. 2. If there's no free agency before the draft, teams will be forced to put a higher than usual premium on filling needs in the draft this year. That's potentially very good for us. We need front 7 defensive talent, and I keep reading that this year's draft is deep at those positions. That means if we trade down a few spots, we can still get the type of front 7 talent that would usually be gone by then. But you need a willing trade partner to move down. With no free agency to shore up weak spots before the draft, there should be more teams willing to trade up. That's especially true at QB this year. Most of what I read says that Gabbert and Newton are the two best QB's this year, and there is a fairly sharp drop-off in talent after them. Denver took Tebow in the first round last year, so they are unlikely to draft a QB at #2 now. So either Gabbert or Newton will probably still be on the board when the Bills are on the clock at #3. I keep reading that Carson Palmer says he will retire rather than play for Cinci, so lots of teams will expect Cinci to be interested in a QB at #4. It doesn't get much better than that if you want to trade down from #3, because it sure seems like most teams that trade up in the first half of round 1 do it to take a QB early. 3. I'd be happy if we traded down a few spots, took the best remaining front 7 defender, and got a few extra picks in the process. If free agency starts before the draft, somebody willing to trade up to #3 might fill whatever need they have in free agency, and we lose a prospective trade down partner. Our only competitve disadvantage in the draft is the historically poor performance of our scouts/decision makers, which I have great hope will be improved over the recent past. How do you see it the other way?

Hard to evaluate when all you can go by is media accounts, but my impression is that Chan tends to be a pretty straight forward guy who calls him like he sees 'em. If that's true, then you would expect him to be a little uncomfortable, and unpracticed, at blowing smoke. When I see him quoted in the media recently as saying that it was a "joy" to be able to talk football over dinner with Cam Newton, that just doesn't ring true to me. A "joy?" Really? If you hear Gailey making excessively favorable comments about somebody in a way that sounds different than how he usually talks, that might be a prety good indication that he's blowing smoke - - but just not very good at it. My guess is that we won't take a QB at #3, but will try to trade down a few spots with some team that needs one and is afraid that Cinci takes one at #4. Time will tell.

I've previously posted some of the court documents filed in the Brady v. NFL antitrust suit, but it was piecemeal - - a document here and there as I found them. I just found a more comprehensive site: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00639/119126/ This link shows ALL court documents filed in the case through March 14, 2011 - - so it contains documents filed by the players' lawyers in support of their request to have the lockout enjoined, including sworn declarations by various people. You can click on the blue hyperlinked numbers to see the full text of each document in the list. On the downside, this list currently contains only the court filings made on or before March 14th. so the more recent court filings aren't there. I don't know if this web-site will be periodically updated to add more recently filed court documents, but thought some here might find it interesting anyway. Note that you can use the "Advanced Search" link at the upper right hand corner of the page to run an updated future search for court documents by plugging in the name Brady, selecting a date range, Minnesota district court, and antitrust as the subject matter. If this website periodically adds the newer court filings, that should access them. I've previously posted a piecemeal link to the NFL's legal brief filed on March 21st in opposition to the players' request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. Here's a piecemeal link to what the players' lawyers filed in reply on March 28th: http://www.nfllockout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/3.28.11-filed-reply-memorandum.pdf

Just found a copy of the actual court complaint at: http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/eller_vs_nfl_lawsuit.pdf

You can see a copy of the actual antitrust complaint filed in Minnesota federal court on 3/11/11 by Tom Brady and others against the NFL at this link: https://docs.google.com/a/leventhalpllc.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwVkb6p7OhGiMmY1MzMyZTktN2RiNC00NDA2LWFiOTAtNDhkYzAxOWE3NmU5&hl=en 1. Decided to make this a new topic so that people could easily decide to review it, or just skip past it if they're not interested in reading the court filings. 2. If I can find any other court papers filed by the players in support of their request for a preliminary injunction (seems like there must be some), I'll post them - - haven't found those yet. 3. Note that the players' complaint alleges that the Bills are owned by "Buffalo Bills, Inc.". That's probably the New York State corporation described here: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415652&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

I'd also like to see us use several high picks on defense this year. I'm hoping that the organization's praise for Newton and Gabbert is part of a strategy to allow them to trade down a few spots in the first round. If this draft is as deep in DL talent as I keep reading, then we can get an impact DL even after trading down a few spots, and get a few extra picks in the process. I realize you need somebody willing to trade up to make that strategy work, but things look promising on that front. Most draftniks seem to think that there is a sharp drop-off in QB talent after Newton and Gabbert, and there are multiple teams widely thought to be in need of immediate QB help, including Cinci at #4. Denver took Tebow high last year, so they are unlikely to take a QB this year at #2. So even if Carolina takes a QB #1, either Gabbert or Newton will probably be on the board when the Bills are on the clock at #3. And if the CBA situation remains unresolved on draft day, teams that need QB help won't be assured of getting anyone in free agency. It doesn't get much better than that if you want to trade down from #3. I recently read that Gailey was quoted as saying that it was a "joy" to be able to talk football over dinner with Newton. A "joy?" Really? Does that sound like an authentic Gailey sentiment to you? Sounds phony to me. But it makes sense if they want to trade down. I'd like to see us trade down a few spots and take Cameron Jordan or JJ Watt, and use the rest of whatever early round picks we have on front 7 defenders and a right OT. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Maybe that's why he can get away with this: http://www.levibrownphoto.com/ Or maybe that's a representation of the guy who tugged on superman's cape? Nah, that would be Moats!

It's hard to keep up with all of the info posted on TSW, but to the best of my knowledge the two links below have not been posted here: 1. http://www.antitrusttoday.com/2011/03/22/players-hope-to-score-a-touchdown-in-brady-v-nfl/ Although I haven't been able to find a link to the court papers filed by the plaintiffs in the Brady suit, this antitrust law-oriented blog provides a short description of several things that the players are actually alleging in their suit. 2. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/patriots/OppositionBrieffiled.pdf This second link apparently contains a legal brief filed by the NFL in opposition to the players' currently pending request for a preliminary injunction - - it's from a link embedded in #1 above. My apologies if either of these two links were previously posted. Anybody have a link to any of the actual court papers filed by the players?

1. I agree with you regarding opting out of the CBA not precluding new negotiations. 2. Von Miller is a named plaintiff in the first antitrust suit, so presumably any draft-related antitrust arguments on behalf of as yet undrafted college players could already have been made in the first suit. 3. It is not clear to me how retired NFL players have been injured YET if the NFL is making whatever retiree benefit contributions the old CBA required of them. 4. As I recently posted in another thread, the owners and players have BOTH known since 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust exemption/ union decertification dance when the CBA ended - - see pages 238 - 239 of the 2006 CBA at: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf 5. Not sure, but I think I read that Page is a Minn state court judge, so he will play no formal role in any federal court antitrust case appeals.

I don't think the outcome is as clear as you believe. I'm late to this thread and haven't read much of it, but I thought the question of how the NFL can proceed after union decertification was interesting, so I did a little digging. It's amazing what you can find with Google searches. On the off chance that anybody else cares, here's some info that might be of interest as this situation plays out: 1. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Vaughan-final-2.pdf Don't waste your time trying to read all of the above link, but there is a pretty pertinent analysis of how courts have dealt with the interaction of labor law and antitrust law in past sports disputes starting at the heading that reads "B. Labor Law" (at approximately pages 618 - 623) This analysis appears to have been fairly recently written by a student at Cornell Law School - - so it is not binding authority about anything but does contain some rational analysis about how courts have dealt with somewhat similar issues involving sports leagues in the recent past. 2. http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf The above link appears to contain the full text of the most recent CBA. I skimmed a very small section of it, and stumbled on some interesting provisions at Article LVII (pages 238-239). Among other theings, the NFLPA got the owners to agree, that at least in certain circumstances, the owners waived (in advance) any legal argument that future decertification of the union after expiration of the CBA was a sham. I have no clue if that's an enforceable waiver, or if the CBA ended in a way that triggers the provision, but both sides clearly knew in 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust law exemption/ union decertification dance in the future. BTW, if you are interested in other provisions of the CBA, it's a pdf format document that can be searched for terms of interest. Just type in the word or phrase you want to find in the search box at the very top of the document and hit "Enter" - - you will jump to the first hit on that word or phrase in the CBA. For example, if you type in "sham" and hit "enter", you will jump to page 238 or 239.

Not saying it's gonna happen, but you could make an argument that if the Bills started to play all of their home games in Toronto, the NFL would not even consider that to be a relocation of the franchise. If the Bills play games in any stadium located within 75 miles of the city limits of Buffalo, that stadium is by definition considered to be within the existing franchise's "Home Territory," as that term has historically been defined in the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL. Isn't the existing Toronto stadium less than 75 miles from the closest part of the Buffalo city limits (as the crow flies)?

Thanks, Doc. 1. My recent Google search turned up the 6/17/07 "newsletter" link below that cites an interview of Ralph Wilson by Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News for Wilson's statements that (i) the team will be sold after his death, rather than left to his wife or daughters. and (ii) selling a part interest in the team to a Western New Yorker while Ralph lives is "absolutely out." http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/ 2. The Toronto series plans were announced about 4 months later, in 10/07, per this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2007-10-18-toronto-games_N.htm 3. I cannot find any quotes attributed to Wilson after 6/17/07 about what will happen to the team after his death. Based on the Mark Gaughan interview (assuming the 6/17/07 "newsletter" got the quotes right), I have seen no quotes attributed to Wilson about the team being "sold to the highest bidder." Maybe Ralph said that, but if so, I haven't found it. As far as I can tell from Google searching, Ralph merely said that the team would be sold after his death, and everybody just assumes that the sale would be to the highest bidder in an estate sale, because that's how estate sales work. 4. It seems to me like there's another possibility. The Toronto series deal could contain an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, at least if he dies while the original or any extension of the Toronto series deal is in force. I am not aware of anything that would prohibit Ralph from conditioning the granting of such an option on the buyers' agreement to always play some specified number or percentage of the team's games in Buffalo (assuming Ralph cares about whether the team stays in Buffalo after his death - - maybe he does, maybe he doesn't). Seems to me like the sales price could be determined by some sort of agreed-upon appraisal mechanism if it wasn't specified in advance. 5. Because the Toronto people could always choose not to exercise such an option (I think I read that Rogers died, and there hasn't been great demand for Toronto game tickets from what I've read), other potential buyers could still be trying to line up for any future estate sale - - NFL franchises don't often become available for purchase. 6. I am NOT saying that such a purchase option exists - - I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, Ralph has never been publicly quoted as saying anything that would be inconsistent with the existence of such a purchase option. 7. If anybody here has a link to any article quoting Wilson as saying anything after 10/07 that would be inconsistent with the existence of an option for the Toronto people to buy the team upon Ralph's death, I'd love to see it.

I keep reading here that Ralph stated that the team would be sold to the highest bidder after his death, but when I do a Google search to try to confirm that, the only news stories I find pre-date the announcement of the existing Toronto deal. As far as I can tell, after the Toronto deal was announced, Ralph hasn't wanted to talk about the issue. Anybody have a link to a story AFTER the existing Totonto deal was announced where Ralph still says the team will be sold to the highest bidder after his death? Thanks in advance.

Don't get me started on lawyers, but if you find NFL antitrust litigation issues fascinating, try chewing on this 1994 court opinion from a case involving NFL antitrust issues and William Sullivan, a former owner of the Patriots: http://openjurist.org/34/f3d/1091/sullivan-ii-v-national-football-league Amidst all the legal mumbo jumbo, there are a couple things that might be of minor interest to Bills fans 1. Brief mention of testimony by Ralph Wilson in paragraph 28 on one minor issue in the case; and 2. A contractual option to buy the Patriots that former owner Sullivan gave to a third party while he owned the team (around paragraph 71) - wonder if Patriots fans knew about that purchase option while Sullivan still owned the team?

I spent a little time trying to search online for any NFL rules on ownership transfers. I could not immediately find the text of any NFL rule or bylaw, but did see articles making reference to the fact that a vote of the owners is required to approve the sale of even minority interests in any team's ownership. While I suppose that it's possible for the other owners to approve the sale of a minority interest in some sort of confidential session and keep it a secret, it just seems to me like the chances of that actually happening without something being leaked to the press are pretty low. I suppose Wilson could grant someone an option to purchase the team after some future triggering event (like Wilson's death) without requiring a league vote right now, but that might be inconsistent with the second hand reports here that Wilson has said that the Bills would be sold after his death. I never saw the text of what Wilson actually said - - only the second hand reports here. Did he say that after his death the team would be "sold to the highest bidder" or simply that it would be "sold." One phrasing precludes anybody already owning an option to buy the team after his death - - the other doesn't. Does anybody have a link to what Ralph Wilson actually said about selling the team after his death? If so, thanks in advance. What if the existing Toronto deal is renewable for say another 5 years at the Canadians' option, but also gives the Canadians an option to buy the team outright after Ralph's death conditioned upon the new owner always playing at least some specified number of Bills' games in Buffalo? Would that be inconsistent with anything Ralph has publicly said?

If you look at the public records of New York State here: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415485&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 it seems likely that Ralph Wilson "owns" the Bills because he is the (a) Chairman of the Board or CEO and (b) either the sole OR majority owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - - a New York State corporation. I say "likely" because although you would expect any successful business man to shield his other personal assets from liability by using a corprate form of team ownership, I have no information one way or the other about whether this particular corporation is being used by Ralph Wilson to own the Bills football team. Given the corporate name, it would seem logical, but that's no guarantee. Ralph could be using this corporation for some Bills-related purpose other than actually owning the team. I don't know for certain, but it also seems logical to me that if anybody out there on the information superhighway could confirm that "Buffalo Bills, Inc." is the name on the checks the team uses to pay expenses controlled by the league (e.g. player salaries?), that would be a pretty strong indication that this really is the corporation that Ralph Wilson uses to "own" the Bills. Any bank tellers out there that could confirm one way or the other what name is on such checks? I follow this board when I have time, but I only see a small fraction of the posts. I can't recall ever seeing any discussion of the fact that Ralph Wilson could already have sold a minority interest in the Bills without making that fact public. Closely held private corporations aren't required to make the same type of public disclosures that widely held public ones must make. I don't have any expertise about New York state law as it applies to privately held corporations, but I am not aware of anything that would prevent Ralph Wilson from (1) selling a minority stake in Buffalo Bills , Inc. (2) telling potential minority stake buyers that he would only sell to them if they agreed to keep their mouths shut while he was alive, (3) avoiding public disclosure of such a sale, and (4) continuing to truthfully represent to the public that he is the owner of the Bills (because he still owns a majority of the company's shares). I am NOT saying this has happened - - I'm just saying that it could have happened without the public being aware of it. I keep reading second hand accounts about how Ralph has said the team will be sold upon his death. Assuming that's true, it would not be inconsistent with a pre-existing sale of a minority interest to a silent investor. Upon Ralph's death, his estate could sell the shares of the corporation Ralph still owned, which could be considered to be selling the team because it would still be a majority stake. Just thought I'd give everybody some new facts to chew on. And by the way, for those who think that the league prevents corporate ownership of teams, I think you're misinformed. The league now prevents ownership of teams by non-profit corporations (other than Green Bay, which got grandfathered in because they were already owned that way before the league passed the rule), but closely held private for-profit corporations are a different animal. Upon previewing this post I'm not sure the link I pasted in works because it's so long, so I cut and pasted the full text of the New York State corporate record below: NYS Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information The information contained in this database is current through February 22, 2011. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: BUFFALO BILLS, INC. Initial DOS Filing Date: NOVEMBER 08, 1974 County: ERIE Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION Current Entity Status: ACTIVE Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity) BUFFALO BILLS, INC. ONE BILLS DRIVE ORCHARD PARK, NEW YORK, 14127 Chairman or Chief Executive Officer RALPH C. WILSON JR 99 KERCHEVAL AVE GROSSE POINTE PARK, MICHIGAN, 48236 Principal Executive Office BUFFALO BILLS, INC. 99 KERCHEVAL AVE GROSSE POINTE PARK, MICHIGAN, 48236 Registered Agent NONE This office does not record information regarding the names and addresses of officers, shareholders or directors of nonprofessional corporations except the chief executive officer, if provided, which would be listed above. Professional corporations must include the name(s) and address(es) of the initial officers, directors, and shareholders in the initial certificate of incorporation, however this information is not recorded and only available by viewing the certificate. *Stock Information# of Shares Type of Stock $ Value per Share 200 Par Value 1 *Stock information is applicable to domestic business corporations. Name HistoryFiling Date Name Type Entity Name NOV 08, 1974 Actual BUFFALO BILLS, INC. A Fictitious name must be used when the Actual name of a foreign entity is unavailable for use in New York State. The entity must use the fictitious name when conducting its activities or business in New York State. NOTE: New York State does not issue organizational identification numbers.