ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

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.

This opens up a world of possibilities. How about: Jessica Simpson's mind and Homer Simpson's physical abilities = Aaron Maybin Jerry Lewis' mind and Jim Thorpe's physical abilites = Mike Williams Any takers?

I've lurked here on and off for quite a while, but I'm a newbie as a poster. I was dubious about this notion of professional fact checkers, so I decided to research the issue a little bit. As I dug deeper, I was surprised at what I found. I may be new around here, but I think everyone who attacked crayonz underestimates the role of people who work as professional fact checkers. They actually get paid to painstakingly verify things, because some situations (like the relationship between Malone and Bell) aren't what they seem to be. If you don't believe me, check out this link: http://mediacareers.about.com/od/mediajobp...FactChecker.htm It states, right there in black and white in the third sentence of the article - - - "Fact checking is one of those oft discussed jobs within the industry that many people outside of the media world don’t know too much about." You only get inducted into the Hall of Fame once, so although Karl Malone was a veteran basketball player, he was a newbie at making an induction speech. Whether you're a newbie at making a HOF speech like Karl Malone, or a newbie at posting like me, I think we can all agree that it's important to have the facts straight before you start talking. So I'm glad that the HOF employs professional fact checkers. Just my 2 cents.

A few questions: 1. Aren't the Green Bay Packers owned by a corporation, shares of which are owned by a lot of individuals in the greater Green Bay community? I didn't research that today, but I think I've seen that reported by the news media in the past. 2. Couldn't a requirement for one owner to have at least a 30% ownership stake in a team be satisfied if an individual owned all, or even a controllong 51%, of the shares of a corporation that actually owned the team? 3. Do you have a link to any reputable source to support the "no corporate ownership of NFL teams" idea? Seems like there's a lot of different fan opinions about how ownership is or must be structured, and it would be nice to get the facts, whatever they may be. Thanks in advance.

Without disclosing anything that was shared with you in confidence, can you tell us when the "person who helped Ralph create the structure" says that the structure was actually created? Thanks.

I agree about the "scatback," but not the switch to the 3-4. If I remember the timing correctly, we signed both Andra Davis and Dwan Edwards (I'm sure about Edwards) in free agency BEFORE the draft. From what I read, both are expected to contribute immediately, largely because of their past experience in playing the 3-4. Even if nobody breathed a word about the 3-4 in public, I don't think it would have been a surprise to any other team on draft day that our defense was switching to a 3-4 after those free agent signings. And public commitment to the 3-4 might have helped persuade those guys to sign. "Scatback" is different. There wasn't any free agent signing to tip our hand on that specific draft target. BUT WAIT! The conventional wisdom is that all teams blow disinformation smoke about what position they will draft first, so our genius FO staff realized that by telling everyone that they just might draft a scatback, no one would believe them, and the scatback would still be there on draft day. Brilliant! [sarcasm detected] 'Course, whether we should have drafted the scatback first is a whole 'nother issue. But I'm willing to hold off judgment on that for a while. Maybe we WANTED somebody to trade up and take Spiller ahead of us, in hopes that the player who dropped as a result would be a higher rated OT? As it turned out, we didn't miss Okung by much.

Here's a video clip of the CNBC interview. The NFL team comments are about 4 minutes into the 5 minute clip. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1564983737&play=1

Sal Galatioto is a "sports investment banker" who was a guest today on the "Strategy Session" show on financial news network CNBC. While discussing the sale of sports franchises generally, he said: "We are involved in the sale of limited partnership interests [in sports teams] all the time. ... We're launching the sale of a 30% interest in an NFL team in September." Sal would not identify the team involved, but said the sale was being made to deal with "estate planning and other issues." He also made other comments about how the sale of limited partnership interests in sports teams are typically done quietly and "person-to-person." Seems to me like there's no particular reason to think the unidentified NFL team is the Bills, because there are probably a lot of teams with owners who need to deal with estate planning issues. I don't follow ownership details of other teams, though. For background on Sal Galatioto, see this 6/3/10 Business Week article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...ets+%2B+finance Here's the website for his firm: http://www.gspcap.com/GSPWeb/Home.jsp?1 Anybody know enough about the ownership situtation of other teams to speculate about which NFL team will be trying to sell a 30% limited partnership interest in September?

I can't tell from your post why you can't get DirecTV at your apartment. If your lease gives you the exclusive right to use a patio or balcony that is not considered a part of the "common area," then in most circumstances your landlord or apartment manager cannot legally prohibit you from installing a satellite dish on that patio or balcony, no matter what your lease says. There's a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rule that makes this clear. Here's a link to the applicable FCC rule: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Note that there are some fairly limited circumstances where the landlord can regulate some aspects of how your dish is installed. If you don't have a clear view from within your patio or balcony to the part of the sky from which the satellite beams down the TV signal, or if you just find the cost of the football package too expensive, you would still have a problem. I suppose you would still have to decide if you want to piss off your apartment manager or landlord by insisting on doing something they would like to prohibit (and risk retribution for petty lease offenses they might otherwise overlook), but in most circumstances they cannot legally prevent you from having a satellite dish on your own patio or balcony, in Texas or anywhere else, no matter what your lease says. Good luck!