ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

It occurs to me that #7 would also be a good choice, because I think he'd get along pretty well with Buddy Nix - - so we'd keep some continuity and maybe avoid another rebuilding cycle.

Well, I guess if nothing else, this thread will be one way to determine who bothers to click on posted links and who doesn't. There's already a member of the Rich family on the Forbes list. I suppose if he wanted to make other members of his family part-owners he could. So how about if future responders pick by number (as some above did) rather than by name? Ready, fire, aim!!!!!!!

Here's a chart from Forbes magazine. For each of 15 people, it shows their net worth, age, residence and the source of their money. All but one are billionaires, so each of them ought to be able to come up with at least enough cash to become the minimum 30% leader of any NFL ownership group. Whether you think highly or poorly of Ralph Wilson, he's about 92 years old, and won't be around forever. Which of these 15 people would you most like to see as the next owner of the Buffalo Bills, and why? My personal choice would be Mr. Howell (#9 on the list). He's not the richest, but he lives a long way from Buffalo, and might meddle less with how his football men run the operation. But reasonable people could differ about this. If Ralph walked up to you and said - - "I'm gonna put the future of the Buffalo Bills in your hands and let you pick the next owner of the team from this list" - - who would you choose? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/fictional/Worth.html And before you flame me, there's nobody from Toronto on the list!

You're not being creative enough. If we're gonna think outside the box, let's consider physics. What we need is a dual threat quadraplegic midget (a "DTQM"). If the midget had no arms or legs, Jasper could chuck the DTQM farther and faster, and the little guy (or little gal for that matter) could make a Donte Whitner-like attempt at a tackle - - Donte refused to wrap up, whereas the DTQM would lack the arms necessary to accomplish that. But Donte made more tackles than most DBs, so who's to say it wouldn't work? Heck, have Jasper carry a DTQM in each hand, that way if he missed with the first one, he'd have a spare. Might come in handy against reverses and flea-flickers. Kinda poetic now that I think about it - - we would defend a flea-flicker with a midget-flicker. The midget would be a dual threat, because Jasper could also throw him in the air to block field goal attempts. Steve Tasker might not be the first special teams player to get inducted into the Hall of Fame. Think of all the money Ralph could save on shoes, thigh pads and gloves if we had not one but two DTQMs on the roster! If Littman reads this thread, it'll happen! And if the Bisons ever needed an extra third base . . . Or, as the OP suggests, we could just play Jasper at ILB, and avoid the inevitable backlash from the dwarf community.

It sounds like we agree that the NFL Bylaws allow trusts to own teams. I agree with the part I bolded above. Do you have any idea whether the beneficiaries were involved in the operation of the business before Ted Rogers died? Whatever people may have thought of him on a personal level, everything I've read seems to indicate that he was pretty good at making money. If the beneficiaries knew that Ted had publicly announced that he wanted to bring an NFL team to Toronto, and knew that such a plan was consistent with Ted's strategy of trying to control professional sports in Toronto so that he would own some of the content that he wanted to broadcast on other assets he already owned, don't you think his family members might be inclined to follow through on Ted's announced plans? Now I'll grant you that there is no guarantee that they would do so, but isn't it at least plausible that having watched Ted Rogers make a gazillion dollars over the years, the beneficiaries of his estate might value his announced business plans, and be hesitant to depart from them? Without knowing more details about the Rogers Control Trust's inner workings, it's hard to know exactly how it will make decisions. The press release does say: That doesn't sound to me like the Control Trust Chair is going to merely passively follow the directions of some bank acting as Trustee, but I'll also grant you that without seeing the governing trust documents it's difficult to know exactly how decisions will be made. It's been widely reported that Rogers Communications is trying to buy Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (the majority owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs). If that's true, there must be a trustee somewhere that's going along with it. Sure doesn't seem like the Rogers Control Trust is shying away from ownership of professional sports franchises. There's already lots of discussion about how Toronto might meet NFL football stadium requirements in this thread - - I won't rehash that here. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5768936

While there has been a lot of discussion about the "third" point in this thread, I'm not sure I ever directly replied to your first two points. This post addresses only your first point (bolded above). Article 3.2 of the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution & Bylaws (starting at page 5/292) makes it clear that, at least in some circumstances, a trust can own an NFL franchise. http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf Here's the full language: That's not easy to understand, but you can strip out some of the wording that's not pertinent to the question of whether the Rogers Control Trust is eligible to own an NFL team, and you are left with this: The "stripped down" version is a little easier to understand. While Ted Rogers was alive, he individually owned a private holding company, and that private holding company in turn owned most of the classs A voting shares of Rogers Communications, Inc. If Ted Rogers had wanted to make a bid to buy an NFL franchise while he was alive, he could have caused the holding company to form a new subsidiary - - let's call it Toronto Football Company - - and that subsidiary could have made the purchase offer for an NFL team. After Ted Rogers died, ownership of the holding company passed to the Rogers Control Trust. IF the Rogers Control Trust now wants to buy an NFL franchise, the Rogers Control Trust can likewise cause the same holding company to form a new subsidiary - - we can still call it Toronto Football Company - - and that subsidiary can make a purchase offer for an NFL team. Seems to me like after Ted Rogers died, the only significant difference, from the standpoint of the NFL Bylaws, is that (1) the Rogers Control Trust must not have more than a certain number of beneficiaries, (2) the Rogers Control Trust must include a person with at least a 30% beneficial interest, and (3) the Rogers Control Trust must be "approved by the Commmissioner's office." I have no idea how many beneficiaries the Rogers Control Trust has - - but it could easily be less than the upper limit allowed by the NFL. I also don't know if any single beneficiary of the Rogers Control Trust has more than a 30% interest - - but I do know that the NFL Bylaws define "immediate family" in a way that is likely to allow the interests of multiple beneficiaries to be aggregated for purposes of satisfying the 30% beneficial interest rule. That may leave getting the Rogers Control Trust "approved by the Commissioner's office" as the only real barrier to having "Toronto Football Company" make an offer to buy an NFL team. Now ask yourself, if the NFL wanted a team to move to Toronto after LA gets a team, but the NFL didn't want to publicly disclose that fact just yet, how easy would it be to simply delay formal approval of the Rogers Control Trust by the Commissioner's office? If the NFL simply delayed such final approval, the Rogers executives like Phil Lind could honestly say that "there is no one at Rogers currently in a position to buy an NFL franchise." Why start a firestorm in Buffalo now when it could so easily be avoided? The NFL Bylaws allow the ownership interests of the "controlling" owner's "immediate family" to be combined for purposes of meeting the requirement that the controlling owner must own at least a 30% benefical interest in a franchise. But if Ted Rogers set up the Rogers Control Trust in a way that left at least 30% of Ted's interest to members of his "immediate family," seems to me like Ted's death didn't necessarily disqualify his "family" (technically the "Rogers Control Trust") from making a purchase offer for an NFL team - - they just need to comply with the formality of creating "Toronto Football Company" - - something Ted Rogers probably would have done anyway had he lived. Wealthy people typically don't own multi-million dollar businesses in their individual capacities.

I don't understand the following link, but decided to post it anyway. It's a transcript of Rogers Communications, Inc.'s second quarter management conference call with Wall Street analysts, and is slightly over a month old. You would expect it to have a pro-company slant, but the company management can't just make stuff up: http://seekingalpha.com/article/281833-rogers-communications-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript Now that Ted Rogers is gone, I sure wish I could figure out who controls how all that free cash is spent. BTW, we have widely divergent views about what bankers will do for a fee.

Maybe so, but I can sleep when I'm dead.

If you've read enough of this thread to prepare that recap, you won't be surprised that the answer is no. There are a few things I'm still checking out, but here's what I know so far. The idea that Ted Rogers individually directly owned the controlling shares of public company Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI") is a myth. In reality, at the time of his death, Ted Rogers owned the shares of a PRIVATE holding company (not publicly traded), and that private holding company in turn owned a majority of the shares of RCI. That may not seem like a significant difference, but it is. The NFL Constitution & Bylaws prohibit publicly traded companies from owning an NFL franchise. So RCI could not own the Buffalo Bills. But closely held private corporations can and do own NFL franchises. The Buffalo Bills are already owned by one such private corporation. The private holding company that Ted Rogers controlled was potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, so long as (1) one shareholder owned at least 30% of the private holding company's stock, and (2) the total number of shareholders of the private holding company did not exceed a certain number of people. But Ted's dead, so why do we care? Here's why - - the NFL Constitution & Bylaws specifically provide that in certain situations, a trust can own an NFL franchise, just like a closely held private corporation can. Well guess what? Upon his death, Ted Rogers' shares of the above-mentioned private holding company passed to something called the "Rogers Control Trust." Members of the late Mr. Rogers' family are beneficiaries of that trust. Why does that matter? It matters because if there are a sufficiently limited number of beneficiaries, the Rogers Control Trust might still be able to meet the eligibility requirements for owning a NFL franchise. Don't believe me? Here's the proof regarding how control of RCI changed upon Ted Rogers' death (most relevant portions bolded by me): http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2008/22/c3549.html Point is, so long as the Rogers Control Trust has a sufficiently small number of beneficiaries, it's at least potentially eligible to buy an NFL franchise, and it won't matter that Ted Rogers died. The trust would need to be approved by the League office, so if RCI executives say that nobody connected with RCI is currently in position to buy an NFL team, that may technically be true. But if the Rogers Control Trust is interested in buying an NFL franchise, my guess is that they already have a pretty good idea about whether such approval could be obtained. I will try to post the NFL Bylaw provision concerning team ownership by trusts in the near future, but it is lengthy, so it may take a while before I can do that.

You may already know this, but I just discovered something showing that the "dig down" plan for the Rogers Center was not a recent invention of the looney Toronto councilman. The "dig down" expansion plan was mentioned in a 2007 Toronto Star article. I don't have a direct link, but the article was quoted verbatim at length at post #71 at this message board site: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=358177&pid=7586173&st=50entry7586173 Here's the pertinent text:

Only indirectly. If he doesn't leave the team to an "immediate family member" as that term is defined in the NFL Constitution & Bylaws, then the next owner of the team is determined by vote of the other 31 owners. Ralph has publicly stated that he is not leaving the team to a family member. Assuming Ralph doesn't change his mind about that, I just hope he hasn't already "poisoned the well" for the eventual owner vote by constantly complaining to the other owners about how difficult it is to be economically viable in Buffalo. The link below is from 2008, but does anybody think Ralph has whistled a different tune to the other owners lately? http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-ownersrankingspartone072208 Wonder which other NFL owner made the quoted comment? From the exact language used, it probably wasn't Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft or Paul Allen. Edit: You can quibble about whether Ralph already had a right to play as many games as he wanted in Toronto because of the 75 mile territorial limit for franchise exclusivity, but even if Ralph had such contractual rights, how is this owner going to evaluate the Buffalo market's future opportunities when it comes time to vote on the next owner of the Bills?

Can you be a little more specific without disclosing confidences? One possible interpretation of your remark is that one or more of Ralph's heirs would like to own the team after Ralph passes, but faces some obstacle. Finding a way to pay inheritance taxes might be the most common reason why descendants or other heirs of the owner of a successful family business don't inherit the business even if they would otherwise want it. Is that one of the reasons why the situation here is "a little more complicated?" Ralph's estate will need to have enough cash to pay estate taxes on the value of all his assets, not just the Bills. If you believe Forbes, the Bills are not entirely debt-free. So the existing team debt, combined with the NFL Bylaw mandate establishing a debt ceiling for each team, might limit the estate's ability to use the team as collateral to borrow enough money to pay the required estate taxes. There's also the question of whether such borrowing, even if available in the required amounts, would seriously hinder the team's ability to make a future profit in Buffalo. If Ralph's other assets are less immediately marketable for fair value than the Bills, it might make more sense, from an estate planning perspective, to liquidate the ownership interest in the Bills to raise the necessary cash, as opposed to selling assets for which there is a less immediately available buyer. I haven't made any back-of-the-envelope calculations, but I think the above describes how it often works. Can you provide any explanation about why you believe the heir situation is "a little more complicated?" Thanks.

Self-indulgent attempt at morbid humor aside, my post #104 above suggests one possible theory, i.e., that the press knows more about Ralph's health than they disclose, that his health has gotten worse, and that the press therefore faces less, or at least shorter term, consequences to the flow of future information about the team if they write something negative now. I freely admit this is just speculation, but in my opinion it's plausible. Upon further reflection, it also occurs to me that, hypothetically, if team management insiders were aware of a downturn in Ralph's health, they might be more willing to talk off-the-record about what's going on behind the curtain. IF Ralph's health has declined recently, some of those people may know about it, even if they aren't talking about it publicly. Those people might figure that they have less to lose by talking to the press now if they are probably going to lose their jobs anyway in a more imminent ownership change (as compared to their expectations when Ralph was just old, but in more robust health). I'm certainly open to other plausible explanations, but if you assume for the sake of argument that the mode of operation behind the curtain has been the same for many years, a non-public decline in Ralph's health seems like one possible reason for the change in the tone of some media reports. It could drive both insider team sources and the press towards more candor. Put yourself in the shoes of a team management insider who really wants to win, has been frustrated by recent team decisions, and learns that Ralph won't have the power to fire him/her much longer. Is he/she more willing to talk about his/her frustrations? Such a management insider could be relatively high up the food chain, if you will. Seems like plausible speculation to me, but there certainly could be other reasons for what we're seeing in the media now. Maybe it's as simple as Ralph backing away from heavy-handed control because of his health, and people lower on the totem pole, while loyal to Ralph, not liking their interim master (whoever that is). Or maybe somebody with an abrasive management style pulled an Alexander Haig to fill the power vacuum (press conference after the attempted Reagan assassination - "I am in control here"), and isn't liked inside the organization. Alternatively, from a Machiavellian perspective, the Evans trade makes the Bills less likely to win in the short term. If Nix/Gailey are most harmed by that, ask youself (1) who benefits, and (2) who is most likely to talk to the press about what really happened (even if it is off-the-record)? Seem like pertinent questions, even if I don't have any answers. All speculative, I admit - - but hey, you asked. At least I'm not claiming that my speculation is "fact."

1. Our head coach, who has a reputation for offensive ingenuity, had lots of time on his hands during the lock-out - - and hasn't shown much of anything surprising yet in preseason - - it's coming. 2. Could be wrong, but we're half way through preseason, and we don't have anybody significant out injured for the year, or even the first regular season game. 3. If Jasper makes the practice squad, he hasn't shown enough so far this preseason to create a risk that some other team will steal him away from us before he develops into an All-Pro. [it's an optimist thread]

Entirely possible. Reading tea leaves is an inexact art. OTOH, it's easier to do the right thing when it involves fewer, or at least less severe, possible adverse consequnces - - no?

Not something I've researched, but just from memory of things I've sometimes read in the general course of following NFL football, lawsuits by fans against the NFL typically aren't very successful. Here's one example that I remembered enough about to quickly find. The "Spygate" case described in the link below is obviously based on a different fact pattern, but as the excerpt reproduced below shows, it involved some legal theories that are somewhat similar to what you've suggested. I haven't tried to look up the outcome of the Third Circuit appeal. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1247009 Just thought you might find the link of interest.

Not exactly. But I think there is a reasonable chance that Ralph's health is poorer than any of us know. It's purely speculation on my part, but if the majority of posters here wonder about Ralph's health, wouldn't you expect someone who makes his living, at least in part, by writing about the Bills, to be curious about the same topic? Again, admittedly this is 100% speculation on my part trying to read the tea leaves, but maybe you don't need to worry about burning a bridge if you know that, fairly soon, you won't be trying to cross that particular river any more.

This thread could use a ray of sunshine (depending on your point of view), so consider this: 1. Can we can safely assume that jw is well aware of the consequences, communication-wise, of what he wrote? 2. Do we have any reason to think that jw has any plans to retire from his chosen profession, or to move to some other part of the country? 3. So why would jw choose to write this piece NOW? Hint - - AFAIK (could be wrong), Ralph hasn't been seen in public since the draft. There is a law commonly referred to as HIPAA, which protects the privacy of patient medical information. Hospitals have fired employees for disclosing information about the medical condition of patients who want to keep their medical information private, or even for just looking up such medical information when not required to perform their job duties. Examples: http://www.news4jax.com/news/17859733/detail.html http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/05/06/allina-fires-32-employees-for-snooping-at-patient-records/ So ask yourself again, why did jw write this piece now? I think the Tripoli chapter of the Bills Backers were the first to figure it out!

Well, if it's a race to the bottom by spending as little as possible before the 2013 cash spending floor for individual teams kicks in, maybe we should be looking at which potential franchise QBs might be available in the April, 2013 draft. I like Fitz, but if we win the race to the bottom by dumping high salaries, 2013 may be our best window of opportunity to get a true franchise QB. I'm not suggesting the team should try to lose, but if the owner's spending mandates tie the GM/coach's hands, maybe that's realistically what we will be looking at. At least the new 2011 CBA will REQUIRE the 2013 Bills to spend 89% of the then-applicable salary cap in cash. Starting with the 2013 season, our GM/coach will then have no more than an 11% spending handicap (averaged over the long term) to overcome to put a winning team on the field, regardless of how little the owner would prefer to spend if given the choice. Wonder how many talented players we will have left to build around in 2013?

Looks like the joke's on me. I shouldn't have doubted Buddy's talent evaluation skills - - he's even more sly than I gave him credit for. According to the US Census Bureau, Texas is officially part of the South region of the United States. Turns out Buddy's record of drafting Southerners was perfect this year. Leave it to sly ol' Buddy to throw people off the scent based on their own geographical misperceptions, while still grabbing 100% pure Southern talent! Way to go, Buddy! Now how about finding a dominant Southern OT next spring? http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

Agreed. The coaches have less time than usual to get the team ready for the regular season opener because of the lockout. Lots of minicamp and OTA time was lost. So something has to get dropped to fit everything into this year's condensed schedule. If even a little game planning for the 2nd pre-season game would usually take place, but it's part of what got dropped, that's fine by me. Better to be ready for the first game that counts than to look good in preseason game #2.

I'm glad we didn't wind up with Pryor - - but you seem to be a much bigger fan of Emperor Goodell than me. http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-08-20/roger-goodell-invokes-because-i-can-thats-why-clause-on-terrelle-pryor

How Green turned out . . . . sure; How he got here . . . . not so much: http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/fair-debt-buyers-practice-act-stalls-in-california-senate/

Does it bother anybody else that Spiller says he wants to "showcase" this year, and that he thinks that switching back to his college jersey number might allow him to play better? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168919/Bills-RB-Spiller-eager-to-bounce-back-in-2nd-year.html Screw "showcase." Learn to pass block, hit the right hole, and do what's required to help the team win.

People say Mallet's slow because of his 40 yard dash time at the combine - - but maybe he's just directionally challenged: