ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

In my personal opinion, part of Goodell's job is to make fans feel good about the NFL in general and their team in particular. If you drill down through all the nice-sounding but fairly ambiguous NFL promotion with a critical eye, you find this little gem buried in an article that repeats Goodell's "Feel good about your team" talking points: http://niagara-gazette.com/sports/x1038034921/Commish-inspires-Buffalo-fans-to-keep-Bill-lievin My translation - - "I don't have a clue about what Ralph plans to do with the team after he's gone, but you should feel good about the NFL in general and the Bills in particular." If an announcement about a long term renewal of the Bills' stadium lease is made, as expected, we need to take a long hard look at not just the duration of the lease, but what kind of buy-out provision it contains (the current lease has one). I've read that Ralph is not asking for significant stadium improvements in the present lease negotiations. That doesn't sound like Ralph to me. Just my speculation, but maybe Ralph is looking to get a less onerous lease buy-out provision in return for not seeking significant stadium improvements. Or slightly less ominously, maybe he's seeking approval for additional regular season games in Toronto. Again, just my speculation, but if Ralph is in a position to ask the County and/or State to spend money on stadium improvements (with LA building a new stadium), yet Ralph is not asking for such improvements, my guess is he's asking for something else instead. Wonder what it is? Edit: Just read this Buffalo Evening News story: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article588078.ece On September 18th, the Buffalo Evening News ran a story that characterized the stadium improvements sought by Wilson as "modest" and "fundamental." http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article560879.ece Not sure what to make of the recharacterization of desired stadium improvements to "significant," but I still think that Goodell has no clue what Ralph's plans are for selling the team after he's gone.

It is my tentative understanding that federal estate tax law currently does exempt all property left to a surviving spouse from federal estate taxes upon the death of the first spouse. So if you assume that Ralph wants to leave everything he owns solely to his wife Mary, and nothing to his children, then I think your above statement is accurate with respect to federal estate taxes that would be due upon Ralph's death. It is also my tentative understanding, however, that (1) Mary is the step-mother (not the biological mother) of Ralph's children, (2) Mary's sister's daughter is employed very high in the management team of Buffalo Bills, Inc. and (3) Ralph's surviving children are not. I don't have links right now to support these three assertions, but my recollection is that they are true - - If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know. Ralph is certainly free to leave his assets to anyone he wants, but in this situation, I would be surprised if Ralph simply left all of his assets to Mary and nothing to his surviving children. This stuff can get complicated. And we haven't even talked about how any of this would be impacted by the use of a trust, which is likely. But it remains my tentative understanding that at least to the extent that Ralph leaves assets exceeding a combined total of $5 million to his surviving children, the "double taxation" would happen if (1) Ralph sold the team while he was alive, and (2) then upon his death left more than $5 million of the sales proceeds to his children. And even if Ralph DID sell the team during his lifetime and then left all of the sales proceeds to Mary, there is still a double taxation issue. Capital gains taxes would be due for the year of the sale, and whatever was left over (less $10 million) would be subject to estate taxes later when Mary eventually died (assuming she didn't spend it or re-marry and leave it all to her future husband upon her death). Conversely, if Ralph continues to own the team until he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up tax basis in the assets they inherit, and capital gains tax on roughly $800 milliom of appreciation that happened during Ralph's lifetime never has to be paid by anyone. That's a pretty powerful incentive to delay any sale of the team until after Ralph dies.

Interesting article - thanks. I need to think about the ramifications a bit. Even though the changes in the law potentially benefit people like Ralph, I have a hard time seeing how they would financially outweigh the "double taxation" caused by paying capital gains taxes on a sale during Ralph's lifetime, followed by estate taxes that are calculated based on his net worth at time of death (see the "Edit" I added to my most recent post above). If the new gift tax law somehow lets Ralph shelter an additional $9 million from gift/estate taxes (compared to the $1 million under the old law), isn't that benefit still going to be a lot less than 15% of his as-yet-unrealized profit on the sale of a roughly $800 million asset that he bought for something like $25,000 many years ago? Wouldn't a pre-death sale of Ralph's stock in Buffalo Bills, Inc. trigger a federal capital gains tax of very roughly ($800 million X 0.15) = $120 million? I'm open to anyone's ideas, but I can't see how the gift/estate tax law changes could save Ralph enough money to overcome the burden of about $120 million in federal capital gains taxes that he would be required to pay for a pre-death sale.

I don't claim any particular education or expertise, but for an estate as big as Ralph's will be, the total overall tax burden created by giving stuff away before you die (rather than passing it through your will) is pretty negligible. There's something called the "gift tax" that comes into play for wealthy individuals like Ralph: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Planning-and-Checklists/The-Gift-Tax/INF12036.html If you want more details, there's a pretty good explanation in the link. Edit: And remember that if Ralph sells the team before he dies, he pays capital gains taxes on the sale profits - - in addition to the eventual estate taxes that would still have to be paid anyway. So if Ralph wants to maximize how much net after-all-taxes money he leaves to his family, there are very few circumstances, given the life expectancy of a man his age with a broken hip, that would make it financially prudent to sell the team before he dies. If he changes course from his 2007 public comments and sells the team before he dies, it would very likely be for non-financial reasons.

Hard to argue that there is no damage control happening here, but the question is, what damage is someone trying to prevent? Your point about teenagers in general seems right to me - - and there is reason to think that this particular kid may have more trouble than most understanding the way others will judge his actions (perhaps for the reasons you suggest): http://www.gametimepa.com/ci_13570599 I've read that Chad has verbally committed to Clemson University, but I've also read that other college coaches are still contacting him, trying to get him to change his mind about which school he will attend. http://app.watchgamefilm.com/_files/disk0/02EE1DD4-728A-41C3-9AAC-6ADD2FAA0925/docs/4C2FE7E2-23B5-468C-A446-C60BF02CE937.pdf I don't follow college football recruiting, so I don't know the rules. I'm assuming, but not certain, that if Chad can still change his mind about where to accept a scholarship, Clemson can still change its mind and withdraw its existing scholarship offer. Under these circumstances, if my assumption about his Clemson scholarship not being binding on either side yet is correct, I can see how his parents/family might see potential risk in letting the kid continue to tweet. Given his past disciplinary issues at Red Lion, PA, why risk letting the kid get embroiled in ANY controversy that might impact his choice of colleges? So maybe the damage being prevented has nothing to do with who the next owner of the Bils will be, and everything to do with protecting the kid's ability to maintain the tentative scholarship commitment from the college he has already decided he wants to attend. Even if the Bills-related news he's hinted at turns out to be relatively unimportant, if it's something the Bills wanted to be first to disclose, it reflects badly on the judgment of uncle Jim (for telling his nephew the info at all) and on Chad (for the ego-pumping hints about having inside Bills info). In my view, although Chad could know something important about the Bills, there could be parental/family damage control happening for other reasons. Haiku if he was my kid: Chad tweets about Bills Clemson scholarship at risk So bye-bye twitter Just my 2 lira.

But media sources say that offense is more important. You're just about the lone voice in the wilderness saying that the team that scores the fewest points is sure to lose the game. Everybody else is accurately pointing out that the team that scores the most points is sure to win the game. How can both those things possibly be true? C'mon man - - get on the media analysis bandwagon! Enough of this thinkin' for yourself stuff!

Lots of good facts and some interesting analysis, but one thing puzzles me. When Chris Berman says "Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills" - - do you envision the other team as being pinned down in the wagons while the Bills circle around outside them? Maybe when Dick Jauron was in charge?

It was an AP article carried by more than just the D & C. Here's a link that still works: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2906872

Here's a link that also references and quotes from Wilson's 2007 interview with Mark Gaughan of the Bufalo Evening News: http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/ Like anybody else, Ralph could change his mind about his plans. But if the Bills make up the majority of the value of his estate, leaving the team to one or more of his daughters might leave his estate short of the cash needed to pay the required estate taxes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/high-school/new-york/post/_/id/91/twinterview-with-chad-kelly#more So at least we know that the kid values his aunt's advice more than uncle Jimbo's.

Gundlach finally appeared on the CNBC "Strategy Session" show on 10/4. Although neither the Bills nor football were discussed, if anybody wants to see a brief interview about mainly his recent trial, here's a video clip: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000049287 The Gundlach interview starts at about 2 minutes into the roughly 5 minute clip. I don't know if he has the money to be a serious future bidder for the Bills, but it seems likely that he has connections to people with serious cash. Would any of them want to be part of an NFL ownership group in the future - - who knows?

I have read enough posts at TSW to have serious doubts about whether many posters are scoring at home. What is it for those who can't even get a date?

No big surprise, but the CA governor signed legislation today designed to grease the skids for getting a new downtown LA NFL stadium built: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/28/2428597/brown-signs-bill-to-help-get-nfl.html

He has a long history of dirty play: http://www.aolnews.com/2008/10/26/vince-wilfork-and-cheap-shots-go-together-like-rodney-harrison-a/

Let's just hope they keep the knobs turned all the way up on that Large Hadron Super Collider gizmo until February.

There's a perfectly rational explanation for this - - the laws of the universe have changed (as evidenced by, among other things, the Bills starting the season with 2 wins and sub-atomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light) - - see post #47 here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/135378-got-a-weird-feeling/page__pid__2258408__st__40#entry2258408

It's almost like there's been a cosmic shift, and the laws of the universe have changed since last season. Uhh, wait a minute, this just in: On April 21, 2011, they turned the knobs on the Large Hadron Supercollider on the Swiss/French border up to 11, and in attempt to find the elusive Higgs boson, reached luminosity levels never before achieved in the history of man. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20056468-264.html?tag=mncol;txt One week later, on April 28, 2011, the Bills took Marcel Dareus (an actual lineman) in the first round of the NFL draft, ending a long streak of questionable Bills draft "strategy." On September 23, 2011, two days before the Bills are scheduled to play the Patriots in a series that has not seen a Bills victory since 2003, physicists announced the "shocking" discovery that their high-tech radar gun had clocked particles traveling faster than the speed of light! http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20110594-264/physics-shocker-neutrinos-clocked-faster-than-light/ When the Bills stun those outside WNY by beating the Patriots, will it be a coincidence? I think not.

Larry Tanenbaum made efforts to buy a professional football team (the CFL Argos) long before the Bills-In-Toronto Series was negotiated. Here's what the Globe & Mail said on March 13, 2004: http://www.cansoc.org/showthread.php?21750-MLSE-set-to-bail-on-Toronto-stadium You could argue that this shows that Tanenbaum didn't even have the stroke to make MLSE buy a 50% stake in the Argos, so how could he swing putting together an ownership group to buy an NFL team - - a much more expensive proposition? Maybe there was a realization that the Argos, while cheaper, involved a much greater risk of loss than an NFL team. There is reason to believe that Tanenbaum and Paul Godfrey were really the "visionaries" behind trying to bring an NFL team to Toronto, and Ted Rogers was the guy "brought in" because he controlled the necessary stadium and was a source of additional required cash. Here's what the Toronto Star wrote about the matter in 2005: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-262483.html This view is consistent with a statement Ted Rogers himself made in 2006. Here's what the Toronto Star wrote: http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/toronto-seeks-nfl-team-752684/ Here's yet another article indicating that Tanebaum was the "leader" of the early efforts to bring an NFL team to Toronto: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/09/06/nfl-franchise-rogers.html Maybe identifying the visionary, as opposed to who was "brought in," depends on who you talk to. I'm not saying Ted Rogers wasn't a key figure in getting the Bills-In-Toronto Series deal done - - I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that a near-billionaire like Tanenbaum would be as heavily involved in seeking an NFL team as the above reports indicate if he didn't have some skin in the game. Why would Tanenbaum make so much effort if he didn't reasonably expect at least some equity stake in any eventual deal (of whatever kind) to bring NFL games to Toronto?

For a summary of the rule (not the actual rule), see: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage Or look up the actual text of the rule in the official 2010 rule book (haven't seen the 2011 version): https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_uI2zLhGzaRMWMyZjkzYjUtZjRiYy00MTU5LWE5OWQtMjc1ZDEzNTFlM2E4&hl=en_US

My significant other says the same thing - - go figure!

If you can't test Sprint 4G coverage in advance at the exact location, type in the zip code on this coverage map and drill down for a rough idea of what Sprint says you'll get: http://ria.sprint.com/ria/pages/index.jsp?ms=4G#!/advantage/network/ But keep in mind that actual reception may not match the map: http://community.sprint.com/baw/message/337026?tstart=0

"Just give it to them" Leodis, don't run it out! Tight ends wide open Since Malloy's first game Pats have dominated us Nix and Chan now here Donte Whitner gone And Poz down in Jacksonville Payback is a b*tch!

Thanks for the chuckle. P.S. Remember Ruby Ridge!

I'm no expert on Toronto politics, but if the Toronto mayor wants to help lure an NFL fra I suggest you check out the picture at the top left corner of this Toronto Sun article (the Toronto mayor is the one with the football in a three point stance on the left, his looney councilman brother is on the right): http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/01/20/16969641.html Have you ever seen your uncle with his shirt off? Just sayin'

Thanks for the link - - I hadn't seen that article. A few points: 1. Maybe the conversation that Mark Gaughan of the Buffalo News had with Ralph Wilson went into more detail than what the quotes attributed to Wilson in the article show, but all Wilson was quoted as saying in the article was that he's never sold any portion of the Bills. That's not inconsistent with the idea that he could have granted a right-of-first-refusal, because any such right would not require a sale during Ralph's lifetime. I'll grant you that Gaughan could easily have gotten an answer from Wilson that would make it clear whether any such right was ever granted, but if he did, the quotes in the article attributed to Wilson don't reflect that. Nothing Gaughan actually quoted Wilson as saying is inconsistent with the existance of a right-of-first-refusal that hasn't been exercised yet, because Ralph is still alive. Does Gaughan understand enough about how a right-of-first-refusal exercisable on Ralph's death would work so that Gaughan could detect a somewhat non-responsive answer and ask the required follow-up question to nail it down? I don't know. 2. I don't know if it's accurate, but it has been reported that Ralph Wilson Enterprises once owned a TV station, and later sold it to an ownership group that included Ralph Wilson and others - - maybe Ralph forgot about it or maybe Ralph wasn't referring to Ralph Wilson Enterprises in his comments to Gaughan: http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-11-29/news/28590508_1 3. Even if no right-of-first-refusal exists, Toronto people may bid on the Bills if the team is put up for sale after Ralph passes, so following developments in Toronto is still relevant to the Bills' future. Edit: 4. "I've never sold any business that we've been in . . ." Maybe just a slip of the tongue, but who's "we"? Probably just a reference to the private corporations he owns as "we" (because he runs them with the help of employees like Littmann), but it's hard to be sure exactly what he was referring to by "we."