ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

This doesn't address all of your questions, but it's pretty clear that the 8th Circuit considers the players under contract to be employees. As indicated above, one sentence in the 8th Circuit opinion reads: "The district court enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective players or 'rookies.'”

Here's a copy of the court complaint that the retired players originally filed on or about March 28, 2011: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00748/119327/1/ Not sure that I want to take the time to read all of it, but if you skip to the very end (but before the attachments), there is a section entitled "Prayer For Relief" that summarizes what they are asking the court to do. Here's what it says: ====================================================================================================================== "PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Complaint as follows: 1. Certifying the class proposed in this Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2); 2. Declaring that the lockout violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining it; 3. Declaring that the NFL Defendants’ future imposition of the anticompetitive Draft with an EPP violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining any implementation of the 2011 College Draft until the issues related to the antitrust violations are resolved; 4. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to deprive the players of the ability to work as professional football players or negotiate the terms of that employment in a competitive market. 5. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to withhold contractually-owed amounts to players (including health and retirement benefits) currently under contract for the 2011 NFL season and beyond. 6. Declaring that, pursuant to the SSA over which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the NFL Defendants have waived any right to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination of the NFLPA’s status as the players’ collective bargaining representative is a sham, pretext, ineffective, required additional steps, or has not in fact occurred. 7. Enjoining NFL Defendants from taking any punitive or discriminatory actions against the Plaintiffs or class members; 8. Placing all disputed sums at issue in this litigation in escrow until a judgment or settlement is reached in this matter; 9. Enjoining the NFL Defendants or their designees from terminating the Plan; 10. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; 11. Granting Plaintiffs and class members such other and further relief as may be appropriate." ======================================================================================================================= Items 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 all include a request for some type of injunctive relief - - but that says nothing about which of those items were the subject of the retired players' later request for a preliminary injunction (as opposed to a permanent injunction entered after an eventual full blown trial on the merits). The website where I found the retired players' complaint doesn't have any of the retired players' court papers that they must have also filed in connection with their request for a preliminary injunction. I'm not suggesting that the retired players actually have been harmed in some way that would give them standing to actually get any of the relief they are requesting from the trial court - - I'm just saying it shows you what they are asking for. You would need to read the complaint to better evaluate if the lockout is actually harming the retired players in some legally actionable way. In any event, the 8th Circuit already decided that they won't be getting any kind of injunction to end the lockout of players now under contract.

Agreed. Even though the NFLPA has decertified and takes the legal position that it is no longer a union? The 8th Circuit left open the possibility that the DC could entertain a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction (of much more limited scope) by free agents and rookies, neither of whom are employees, either. Any such injunction would not end the lockout, but it could require the NFL to open contract negotiations with rookies and free agents. Not sure if you would consider that to be "intereference" with "how the NFLPA is doing business." I agree that there will be no injunction that prevents the owners from locking out players already under contract. There could be a more limited injunction that results in the opening of free agency and the negotiation of rookie contracts, but even that is probably unlikely. As I pointed out above, the NFLPA's lawyers have pretty limited incentives to seek an injunction of such limited scope, even if they are legally free to try. I agree that media reports indicate that this is the main thing they want, but at least in the past it is not the only thing they have asked for. I have a very hard time seeing how they have standing, but haven't read any of their legal briefs, so I'm a little hesitant to jump to the conclusion that they can't persuade Judge Nelson that they have standing. If you put a gun to Fred Jackson's head and said convince Judge Nelson that the retired players have standing or I'll shoot Freddy, I would try to fashion an argument that the NFL's current practices will harm the retired players by reducing the $ used to fund retired player benefits - - but I think Spiller might wind up starting the first game. As for the retired players not wanting to end the lockout - - if that's true, it probably represents a change in their original position on the matter. Footnote 2, at the bottom of page 10 of yesterday's 8th Circuit opinion, states: "2Several retired professional football players brought a similar but separate action on March 28, 2011, also seeking a preliminary injunction. The district court consolidated the two actions, and denied the retired players’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot after issuing an injunction in the previously filed action." Then again, I'm not sure exactly what type of preliminary injunction the retired players originally asked for. I suppose it could have been of severely limited scope - - and made moot by the more comprehensive injunction that Judge Nelson actually granted. Because I haven't read any of their court filings, I don't know exactly what the retired players are claiming. I tend to distrust second hand media reports about such things. I suspect that you are probably right about how weak their legal theory is, but I'll reserve judgment on the matter for now. If they are no longer challenging the lockout, it's probably a change from their original position. Your thoughts?

FWIW, a few additional thoughts on where we are after today's 8th Circuit opinion with respect to the lockout: Although it hasn't gotten as much publicity, the trial court consolidated the Brady antitrust case with an antitrust case that was originally filed separately by a group of retired players. Both the current and retired players requested a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. The trial court granted the current players' request for an injunction, with a detailed opinion that the 8th Circuit now says was erroneous, because the trial court lacked the authority to enjoin a lockout of players now under contract. The trial court never reached the merits of the retired players' simultaneous request for the same type of injunction. The trial court merely denied it as "moot." That's legalese for the idea that if the trial court has already decided to grant the injunction for reasons advocated by the current players, there is nothing to be gained by trying to figure out if the retired players also had a separate and independent right to get the same relief. As a result of today's 8th Circuit opinion, however, the retired players' request for an injunction is no longer moot. It's not clear to me how the retired players have standing to complain about a lockout of non-retired players (although they must have some sort of theory about how the lockout is allegedly harming the retired players). Because they are not currently under contract as players, it seems to me that the retired players fall into the same category as rookies and free agents for jurisdictional purposes. I can't see how anything in today's 8th Circuit opinion deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the retired players' pre-existing request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. That doesn't mean that the retired players will get an injunction - - but it may mean that they are now entitled to renew their request for an injunction and to have the trial court reach the merits of that request. The retired players have been complaining that they've been excluded from any real participation in the ongoing court-ordered mediation. If the retired players really do have some potentially valid legal theory for why they are entitled to have the lockout enjoined, they just might get a warmer welcome from the NFLPA's lawyers as the case proceeds. OTOH, if the NFLPA's lawyers don't think the retired players have any real chance of getting a preliminary injunction to end the lockout, the NFLPA's lawyers will probably continue to basically ignore them as much as they can. Just my 2 cents. [7/9 EDIT - - Changed my mind about something above. Even if they otherwise have standing, the retired players won't be able to get an injunction to end the lockout with respect to players now under contract because the 8th Circuit already decided that the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction here. I still think that the retired players, like free agents and rookies, are free to seek a preliminary injunction of more limited scope.]

It's a small point, but after reading the opinion, I'd say: All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout of players now under contract. Section B of the opinion, starting at page 33, makes this clear. It reads: ================================================================================================== "Another portion of the injunction is not foreclosed by § 4(a). The district court enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective players or “rookies.” As to these latter groups of players, § 4(a) does not apply. The refusal of the League and NFL clubs to deal with free agents and rookies is not a refusal “to remain in any relation of employment,” for there is no existing employment relationship in which “to remain.” An injunction with respect to the League’s actions toward free agents and rookies, however, cannot be issued except in strict conformity with § 7 of the NLGA, 29 U.S.C. § 107, because this is “a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” Id. §§ 101, 107. The present injunction does not conform to § 7." ================================================================================================== The district court DID have jurisdiction to issue an injunction requiring the league to deal with free agents and rookies, but was required by § 7 to give the League the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before doing so. That didn't happen. As the 8th Circuit said: "Whether to enter an injunction requiring the League to deal with free agents and rookies, only to have these players locked out as soon as they enter into any new contract of employment, was not considered." It will be interesting to see if the players renew their request for a much more limited preliminary injunction with respect to only rookies and free agents. Although today's 8th Circuit opinion leaves the players free to do that, I'm not sure they have much incentive to try. Even if successful, the free agents and rookies would be locked out immediately upon signing a contract, so such an injunction wouldn't accomplish much. I wonder if the owners will consider opening free agency and/or rookie contract negotiations while keeping the lockout in place with respect to players under contract? Seems to me like that might limit some of their potential future antitrust liability while keeping economic pressure on the players already under contract. OTOH, if the players have tentatively agreed to new rookie contract restrictions, and the owners expect to get a release of all potential antitrust liability as part of an impending global settlement, the League doesn't have much incentive to change course and start dealing only with free agents and/or rookies.

I haven't read it yet, but here's the actual text of today's 8th Circuit opinion: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3805522.0.pdf

I think it does. I realize that this is a topic that sparks emotional responses, because nobody, including me, wants to see the Bills leave Buffalo. It's also true that, while I realize that I'm distinctly in the minority on this, it is still my opinion that there is a possibility that RW granted a right of first refusal to buy the team to "the Toronto side of the deal." I think that possibility still exists because (1) I've never seen any media reports that actually quote RW as saying anything inconsistent with my speculation that it could have happened, and (2) I still believe that there are many reasons why the Toronto side of the deal would have wanted such contractual rights. My impression has always been that, whatever anyone thinks about him in other areas, RW is basically an honest guy. So when I first started the thread, I was hoping that someone could provide a link showing that Ralph actually said something in an interview or press release that was inconsistent with my speculation, but that I had somehow missed it, despite having already spent a fair amount of time on google searching for contemporaneous RW quotes myself. That hasn't happened. It's true that a lot of generally well-informed people are clearly of the opinion that Ralph did not grant "Toronto" a right of first refusal to buy the team. Some have given very rational explanations in this thread for why they hold that opinion. But sort of like conventional wisdom that everyone just "knows," an opinion, no matter how firmly believed, can be wrong. That's true of my opinions, yours, and everybody else's. I've given some thought to your suggestion that I change the thread title. I've always thought that, as between the two, the granting of a right of first refusal was much more likely than the grant of an outright option to purchase. I used the term "Option To Buy" in the main thread title simply because "Right-Of-First-Refusal-To-Buy" was too long. With respect to the sub-title - - - "Please convince me that it didn't happen" - - I think you have a point. While I would still welcome any future posts providing contemporaneous RW quotes from the time the Toronto deal was made, my own reason for continuing to post Toronto-related information here has changed a bit. As I pointed out above, even if it turns out that RW never granted any sort of option or right of first refusal to Toronto, it remains true that wealthy Toronto businessmen and politicians are actively seeking an NFL franchise. It seems pretty likely that if the Bills are sold at auction after Ralph passes, people in Toronto will bid. I still have a few thoughts I haven't posted yet about the possibility that a right of first refusal to buy the team was already granted, because I want to check a few facts first. But I am now also posting Toronto-related information here in part to monitor the likely strength of any future Toronto bid to buy the Bills, even if Toronto has no existing contractual right to do that. I suppose I could have started yet another Toronto thread for that purpose, but it made more sense to me to continue to post Toronto-related info in one place. I'm willing to change the sub-title to "Keeping An Eye On Toronto's Ambitions." I'll consider other sub-title suggestions if you can convince me that they would more accurately describe the direction this thread has taken. Fair?

It's a long thread, so I can understand how you could easily have missed it, but here's what I actually said (partial quote from my post #85 above): "I was pretty up front in the OP that the question of whether Ralph already granted Toronto an option to buy or a right of first refusal to buy is speculative. * * * * * I happen to be interested in what will happen to the Bills after Ralph's death, and I think the Toronto situation bears watching. I doubt that I'm the only one. Even if it turns out that Ralph has NOT granted any sort of option or right of first refusal to anyone, Toronto people are potential bidders in any future post-Ralph sale of the Bills. So as I find information relevant to Toronto's interest or ability to eventually buy the Bills and move them to Toronto (with or without the benefit of any existing option or right of first refusal), I will probably post it here. Anyone who's not interested in the topic can pretty easily ignore this thread if they wish - - I am sure many will." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As for getting me to "move on" at any time before it becomes clear who will own the team after Ralph passes, well, good luck with that. This is a Bills-related topic that interests me, and I'm not flaming anybody.

I can rest easy now!

THE TIES THAT BIND: TED ROGERS, LARRY TANENBAUM, AND THE TORONTO SPORT ELITE (March, 2003) https://physical.utoronto.ca/Libraries/CSPS_PDFs/Working_Paper_2.sflb.ashx "The major purpose of this research project is to conduct an examination of the nature, structure, and interconnectedness of professional sport franchise ownership in Toronto. This study: (i) outlines the composition of the board of directors of each professional franchise in Toronto within six selected team sports; (ii) determines the extent to which these franchiseseither through ownership connections or more subtle links at the board levelare integrated into larger corporate and media conglomerates; and (iii) assesses the implications of such connections on franchise business practices and for consumers." * * * * * * * "This case study of professional sport team ownership in Canada was first written as a graduate student research project. The detailed and comprehensive data show striking overlaps and interconnections between Rogers and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) the two major players in professional sport in Toronto. At the time of writing (2011), those connections appear set to become even closer with rumours that Rogers is about to purchase MLSE. Dr. Field provides an insightful prologue, Eight Years Later: The Toronto Sport Oligopoly in 2011, to update his paper."

Back in the early 80s, Ralph C. Wilson Industries, Inc., as the FCC licensed owner of a San Jose, CA TV station, filed and lost an antitrust suit as plaintiff against other Bay Area TV stations and certain suppliers of TV programming: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/794/1359/230901/

Call me a freak, but I've sometimes killed time while waiting for movie start times by reading business magazine articles (among others) in nearby bookstores. I'm interested in both business topics and the Bills, so I'm a little curious about the other business interests of the guy who owns at least the controlling interest (and for all we know 100% of the interest) in the corporation that owns my favorite football team. BTW, isn't "fixation" a little strong? It's not like I'm planning a hostile takeover or anything - - although I have posted before on the topic of RW's business interests. To a certain extent, all of us are here because we're collectively "fixated" on Bills-related topics. If that's a crime, I plead guilty. In general, I figure if something Bills-related interests me, it probably interests at least a few other fellow Bills fans as well. so it seemed appropriate to post what I found.

I never seem to read much about Ralph Wilson's business interests other than the Bills. So I decided to dig a little bit and see what I could find. This is not intended to be comprehensive, but if like me you've ever wondered what other business interests Ralph has besides the Bills, here's a very small window into his world (note that some of the info is a few years old - - he could have divested any of this stuff without going public about it): A. Horse racing (from a 2003 court case in Kentucky): 1. http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/insure/hiscox.htm "Wilson, as Trustee of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Revocable Trust, is the owner and a named insured on Lloyd's Policy No. 483/H119752 insuring against the humane destruction of the unnamed 1999 bay colt out of the mare Lonely Girl by the thoroughbred stallion Unbridled owned by the Trust. Underwriters are subscribers to and participants in the Policy and are bound and liable under the policy for payments due thereunder, i.e., the colt's agreed value of $875,000, subject to certain condition precedents set forth in the policy. Wilson is an experienced entrepreneur with diverse business holdings, including highway construction, radio stations, trucking, the thoroughbred horse industry, ownership of the Buffalo Bills, and previous ownership of an insurance brokerage firm. He purchased the subject colt at a Keeneland yearling sale in Lexington, Kentucky, on September, 2000. Shortly thereafter, the colt was added by endorsement as a covered horse under the policy and insured for the sum of $875,000." Food for thought - - If Ralph put an $875,000 race horse into a revocable trust prior to 1/03, why not his stock in Buffalo Bills, Inc.? 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1085484/index.htm B. Ownership of TV stations and investment in, among other things, 5 venture capital funds: 1. http://www.getitgrowing.info/Portals/51/IT%20Risk%20Managers,%20Inc/BIO-Skip.pdf'>http://www.getitgrowing.info/Portals/51/IT%20Risk%20Managers,%20Inc/BIO-Skip.pdf 2. http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-11-29/news/28590508_1 "Channel 36 began broadcasting in October 1967 with the call letters KGSC. It broadcast mostly of black and white movies, wrestling and such late-night fare as "Old Sourdough" and "Movies 'til Dawn." Its call letters were changed to KICU when it was bought by Ralph Wilson Enterprises. Like the Silicon Valley around it, it grew quickly and its programming expanded to include highly rated off-network series, local news and other local programming. Ownership changed again in the early 1990s, with the station going to a group of local businessmen, including Ralph Wilson, the late William Hirshey and Jim Evers, the station's current general manager and president." C. Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. 1. http://www.corporationwiki.com/Michigan/Grosse-Pointe-Farms/ralph-c-wilson/29792933.aspx "Ralph C. Wilson is associated with Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. and holds several roles such as Director and Chairman." D. Polycon Systems, Inc. 1. http://www.getitgrowing.info/Portals/51/IT%20Risk%20Managers,%20Inc/BIO-Skip.pdf Based on the description of what Polycom Systems, Inc. does in the above link, the link below seems to be related (although the company name is not identical): 2. http://polyconmfg.com/ Anybody know anything about his business interests in radio stations or trucking (both of which were briefly mentioned in the 2003 Kentucky court opinion above)? It seems odd that I've never heard of most of these business interests of Ralph - - could there be some other "Ralph Wilson Enterprises" responsible for some of them (especially the TV stations)?

1. I'm late to the party because I've just spent a little over a week "off the grid" hiking in Glacier National Park - - good for both the body and the soul!! 2. The USA Today database seems to be pretty fact-based if you read the internal link at that site about how they come up with their data. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if I am interpreting the explanatory note that accompanies the chart correctly, for years after 2001 USA Today lumps signing bonuses actually paid in a given year and the base salary actually paid to that player in the same year together, and uses the combined bonus and salary figure in preparing the chart for that year. Conversely, for salary cap calculation purposes, signing bonuses get amortized over the length of the contract. This may explain why the USA Today numbers don't match some figures used elsewhere. 3. After reading the entire thread, there's one aspect of the potential new salary cap rules that I've not seen discussed yet. One of the links above showed that Dallas and Washington (if I remember the teams correctly) paid signing bonuses in 2010 - - an uncapped year - - that made their total payments to players in 2010 exceed estimates of what the salary cap WOULD have been in 2010 if the owners had not opted out of the old CBA. In any other year, those large 2010 signing bonuses would have been required to be amortized over the entire term of the contracts for each player involved. This tends to maintain competitive balance, because Dallas and Washington would have less money left that they could spend in future years before they reached the spending cap limit. But with no salary cap rules in place for 2010, have Washington and Dallas gained a FUTURE advantage, by locking up current talent with 2010 signing bonuses, yet having the same amount of money to spend in any future capped year as everybody else? 4. How will the new salary cap rules account, for example, for a $5 million signing bonus paid in 2009 (the last capped year) on a 5 year contract? Under the old CBA (pre opt-out), $1 million of that signing bonus gets amortized against the salary cap in each year of the 5 year contract. But what happens under a new CBA? Would there still be an as yet unamortized $3 million that will have to count against future capped years? Or would all previously paid but as yet unamortized portions of prior signing bonuses be wiped out by the uncapped year? 5. It sure would be nice if we had some actual football to talk about!

Here's what the relevant part of the 2006 version of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL says about transfer of membership in the league - - it controls ALL transfers, whether during Ralph's life or after his death: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf [see Article III, section 3.5("Transfer of Membership"), specifically at pages 8/292 through 9/292] "3.5 No membership, or any interest therein, may be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred in whole or in part except in accordance with and subject to the following provisions: A. Application for the sale, transfer or assignment of a membership, or of any interest therein, must be made in writing to the Commissioner. Upon receipt of such application, the Commissioner is empowered to require from applicant and applicant shall furnish such information as the Commissioners deems appropriate, including: (1) The names and addresses of each of the buyers, tranferees or assignees thereof; (2) The price to be paid for such sale, transfer, or assignment, and the terms of payment, including a description of the security for the unpaid balance, if any; (3) A banking reference for each buyer, transferee, or assignee; and (4) If the buyer, transferee or assignee is a corporation, a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws thereof, together with a copy of the share certificates of each class of stock to be outstanding, the names and addresses of the directors and officers thereof, the names and the addresses of the stockholders therein, and the price paid or to be paid and the time of payment for said stock, a copy of any proposed voting trust agreement and of any voting trust certificates. B. Upon receipt thereof, the Commissioner shall conduct such investigation as he deems appropriate. Upon completion thereof, the Commissioner shall submit the proposed transfer to the members for approval, together with his recommendation thereon, and all information in respect thereto that the Commissioner deems appropriate. All sales, transfers, or assignments, except a transfer referred to in section 3.5© hereof, shall only become effective if approved by the affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths or 20, whichever is greater, of the members of the League. C. If any person owning or holding a membership, or an interest therein, dies, such membership or interest therein may be transferred to a member of the "immediate family" of the deceased without requiring the consent or approval of the members of the League nor the Commissioner. Similarly, if any person owning or holding a membership or an interest therein, by stock ownership or otherwise, seeks to transfer such membership or any interest therein by gift, such membership or the interest therein my be transferred to the donee if the donee is a member of the "immediate family" of the donor. In such event, no consent or approval of the members of the League or the Commissioner shall be required to complete such transfer. The "immediate family" for the purpose of this paragraph shall mean the wife, child, mother, father, brothers and sisters, or any other lineal descendant of the deceased or donor. In all other cases involving death or transfers by gift, any person succeeding to a membership or an interest therein, whether by gift, will, intestacy, or otherwise, must be first investigated by the Commissioner in such manner as the Commissioner deems appropriate. Upon the completion thereof, the Commissioner shall submit such succession or transfer to the membership for approval and shall accompany the same with his recommendation thereon. No such succession or transfer shall be effective unless first approved by the affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths or 20, whichever is greater, of the members of the League." =================================================================== It's not clear to me that the type of transfer you suggest would avoid the requirement of approval by at least 3/4 of the other owners. As I read the above provisions, the only type of transfer that avoids the approval vote procedure is a transfer to the owner's "immediate family." BTW, for those who don't think that a corporation can own an NFL franchise, note that section 3.5(A)(4) above specifically contemplates that the buyer of a membership (i.e., the buyer of an NFL franchise or team) can be a corporation.

My OP has a timeline, but includes activities of Canadians starting mainly in September, 2006. Just found a link with the George Lucas prequel: http://thestar.blogs.com/jabs/2006/09/nfl_in_toronto_.html The link has a timeline with more entries involving Toronto Star archive stories about possible NFL expansion to Toronto between 1986 and 2006 - - - here are most but not all of the entries: "Jan. 1986. NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle says league doesn't intend to expand into Canada and that has nothing to do with the future of the CFL. Feb. 1989. Toronto group (The Sun, Carling-O'Keefe) announces it's been working toward acquiring a franchise since 1986. Paul Godfrey estimates cost of an expansion team at $50-60 million. Aug. 1990. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue on international expansion: "If you include Canada I think it is obviously realistic in this decade." Dec. 1990. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says Toronto is ready for an expansion franchise, "could easily support any sports franchise." Jan. 1991. Bills owner Ralph Wilson: "A Toronto club wouldn't hurt us. We don't depend on Canada for fans." Feb. 1994. NFL spokesman says league has no minimum seating requirement for stadiums. June 1995. Godfrey pegs cost of expansion franchise at $200 million U.S. Tagliabue says L.A. the priority for a team, but suggests SkyDome smallish football capacity (54,000) is not a problem in Toronto's reckoning. "I think the future involves the quality of a stadium as much as the size." Aug. 1995. Bills, Cowboys play exhibition game at SkyDome in front of 55,799. Late 1995. Jacksonville, Carolina get expansion franchises for $140 million U.S. each. Bills owner Wilson: "A team in Toronto would definitely have an effect on our team. We think this is our market." Aug. 1998. Bills, Packers play exhibition game in SkyDome in front of official crowd of 53,986, but Star reporters note about 10,000 no-shows out of that number. Sept. 1998. Cleveland group pays $530 million for franchise. Oct. 1998. At NFL owners meeting, Toronto doesn't make bid for 32nd league franchise. Godfrey: "The NFL will go international and I think the first international city in the league will be Toronto." Nov. 1998. Tagliabue: "No timetable for expansion" internationally. Summer 1999. Local report has Bills being acquired by Toronto group for $500 million US and moved to Toronto as part of Wilson estate planning. Oct. 1999. Houston added as 32nd NFL franchise, expansion fee $700 million. April 2002. Tagliabue: Toronto not on radar for future expansion. Feb. 2005. Tagliabue, on whether NFL will expand to Toronto in our lifetimes: "It depends on how long you expect to live." And: "I think it could be very likely that the next franchises in the NFL, beyond 32, are outside the U.S. Toronto would certainly be a candidate." ============================================================================================================= I was surprised by the "summer 1999" entry above - - my attempts at searching the Toronto Star archive to find it failed. It's odd that all the other timeline entries are listed by month, but that one is listed differently. Anybody recall seeing such a "local report" (whatever that is)?

Hearing date on NFL's motion to dismiss the players' antitrust complaint has been moved up two weeks - - - it will now be heard on August 29, 2011. Maybe Judge Nelson is giving herself 2 weeks to write the opinion so that she can actually issue it 6 months and 1 day after the suit was filed? - - Hard to know why she decided to move the hearing date up two weeks. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-judge-moves-lawsuit-hearing-to-August-29-060711

Charitable contributions result in tax deductions, not dollar-for-dollar tax credits. So as Albany pointed out above, your logic is seriously flawed. If you really think that Ralph's charitable contributions effectively cost him nothing (because you think every dollar he contributes to charity reduces his tax bill by the same amount), read: 1. http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2007/q0319.htm "I could never figure out the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. I would appreciate some clarification on this subject. Thanks. Good question -- especially this time of year. A tax credit lowers your tax bill dollar for dollar. A deduction shaves money off your taxable income, so the value depends on your tax bracket. If you're in the 25% bracket, a $1,000 deduction lowers your tax bill by $250. But a $1,000 credit lowers the bill by the full $1,000, no matter in which bracket you are." 2. http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/taxdeductionsforcharity.htm "If you itemize deductions on your tax return, you may be able to take an income tax deduction for a gift to a qualified charitable organization. The actual cost of your donation is therefore reduced through your savings on your taxes. For instance, if you are in the 33% tax bracket, you would save $33 on a donation of $100." =========================================================== P.S. Getting a large income tax refund is actually a BAD thing if you could have adjusted your withholding or estimated tax payments to avoid giving the government an interest free loan equal to the amount of your eventual tax refund, but that's a topic for another day.

Although this article is over four months old, if it was posted in other threads, I didn't see it. Councilman Ford says in the article that the Bills are not being targeted, but I thought the fact that FOUR separate groups expressed interest in bringing an NFL team to Toronto was noteworthy. http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/nfl/2011/01/21/toronto_jaguars/ "Four separate groups interested in buying a struggling NFL team and moving it Toronto have approached Mayor Rob Ford since his election in October, city councillor Doug Ford said Friday. Paul Godfrey, chairman of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and head of the PostMedia newspaper chain, has long been the torchbearer for efforts to bring the NFL north, while more recently Rogers Communications Inc., has moved to the forefront with its Bills in Toronto series. That two other parties are also in pursuit of a team is news. Ford didn't identify the parties, but said City Hall is ready to help them make it happen."

This information was previously posted in a lightly followed thread about the CFL's Hamilton TiCats team. I realize that the political situation may be far different with respect to bringing the NFL to Toronto as opposed to saving the CFL in Hamilton, but it may shed some light on how stadium building or remodeling projects can get funded north of the border: =================================================================================================== Ivor Wynne stadium in Hamilton, Ontario is going to be rebuilt and expanded - - but still way, way too small for an NFL team. http://newscliptv.com/local/3175.html What I find interesting, though, is the extent to which city, provincial and federal government money will be used to fund the roughly $ 150 million project. If I am reading the article correctly, here's where the stadium rebuild money is coming from: Canadian federal gov't - - - $35.0 million Ontario provincial gov't - - $57.5 million Hamilton city gov't - - - - - $51.5 million New naming rights - - - - - $ 6.0 million Ti-cats team contributes - $ 3.0 million . Total $153.0 million The Ticats are only putting up slightly less than 2% of the cost of the project.

From http://www.jeffreyteam.com/blog/search/real-estate-toronto-2011/ (significant portion reproduced below - scroll down to the 5/16/11 entry of this link to see the rest): "An influential Vaughan developer, who donated generously to Mayor Ford’s pre- and post-election fundraising drives, controls a long-term lease on the Port Lands’ Hearn Generating Station, which has been proposed as a site for an NFL stadium by the mayor’s brother Doug. Developer Mario Cortellucci, together with various relatives and individuals who listed his company’s premises on their donor forms, contributed $30,000 to the mayor’s campaign, about half of which was raised following the election as part of a multi-candidate effort to eliminate campaign deficits. He also secured a private meeting with Rob Ford, according to scheduling documents released under access to information laws. The figures, based on election contribution filings, were compiled by York University political scientist Robert MacDermid. “The important point here is that when a councillor or mayor runs a deficit and wins, every person seeking influence crowds into the subsequent fundraising events.” Adrienne Batra, the mayor’s spokesperson, says Mr. Cortellucci wanted to discuss a charitable organization Mr. Ford and his brother Doug “might be interested in getting involved in.” Neither Mr. Cortellucci nor Doug Ford responded to requests for interviews. Ms. Batra declined to reveal the charity, saying it was a “private meeting.” Owned by Ontario Power Generation, the iconic but abandoned Hearn site has been leased since 2002 to Studios of America, controlled by Mr. Cortellucci. The city issued a demolition permit on Dec. 15. OPG spokesperson Ted Gruetzner says the lease gives the company broad latitude to re-develop the property. “It’s between the city and the Studio to work through this.” While Mr. Cortellucci’s development companies in the past have pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to right-of-centre municipal and provincial candidates, Prof. MacDermid’s analysis shows the 2010 race was his first serious foray into Toronto politics. In 2006, Mr. Cortellucci and another relative gave just $2,500 to Jane Pitfield’s mayoral campaign. In 2010, he donated $4,000 and $2,000 to George Smitherman and Joe Pantalone respectively. The Studio venture is largely considered to be moribund, and the massive structure’s future continues to be the subject of much speculation. During its Dec. 16 meeting city council voted 39-1 to urge OPG to consult broadly about the heritage value of the Hearn before proceeding with the demolition. Both the mayor and his brother voted in support of the motion. However, in a recent interview with The Globe and Mail, the mayor’s brother said a stadium at the Hearn site could be the anchor for a massive redevelopment of the Portlands that would “turn this dump site into a wow factor.” It would include dramatically designed residential buildings and high-end retailers such as Macy’s department store. A monorail elevated transit system would link it to downtown. Meeting with Rogers The Globe has learned that NFL football in Toronto was discussed in a March meeting between Rogers officials and Doug Ford. According to the city’s lobbyist registry, Councillor Ford in mid-March met with three Rogers executives, including Rogers Media president Keith Pelly, who oversees the company’s sports assets, including the Rogers Centre and the Blue Jays. The registry indicates the three officials sought the meeting to discuss “cell towers.” But Rogers spokesperson Jan Innes said they also discussed the “Bills in Toronto” series with the mayor’s brother.

I was pretty up front in the OP that the question of whether Ralph already granted Toronto an option to buy or a right of first refusal to buy is speculative. I don't even have a sloppy bow to tie it all together, much less a neat one. Feel free to read as much or as little as you like of my posts or the associated links that I've provided here. But in answer to "so?" - - - We have a 90+ year old owner who has never publicly stated, as far as I know, that he has made any arrangements to help keep the Bills in Buffalo after his death. But he has publicly stated that the team will be sold after his death, as opposed to left to family members. At the same time, the NFL has been at least talking about eventual international expansion, and both billionaire businessmen and Toronto politicians have publicly stated that they want to bring an NFL team to Toronto. Rogers Communications has already invested in marketing the Bills to the Toronto area for several years, and despite the death of Ted Rogers, has not disavowed interest in bringing an NFL team to Toronto as far as I know. I happen to be interested in what will happen to the Bills after Ralph's death, and I think the Toronto situation bears watching. I doubt that I'm the only one. Even if it turns out that Ralph has NOT granted any sort of option or right of first refusal to anyone, Toronto people are potential bidders in any future post-Ralph sale of the Bills. So as I find information relevant to Toronto's interest or ability to eventually buy the Bills and move them to Toronto (with or without the benefit of any existing option or right of first refusal), I will probably post it here. Anyone who's not interested in the topic can pretty easily ignore this thread if they wish - - I am sure many will. But the deeper I dig, the more concerned I get that the Bills may have Toronto ownership in a few years. I won't assume that your silence indicates that you agree with anything I say - - but when you do post your thoughts here they are fair game for comment and evaluation - - just like anyone else (including me). Thanks - - this thread is pretty long, so there's no need to read it all before posting here, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting analysis and a well-reasoned attempt to make sense of the particular timing chosen by the MN trial judge for setting a hearing date on an NFL motion to dismiss the players' antitrust complaint. While the trial judge has discretion to change the otherwise applicable briefing schedule for that type of motion, it IS interesting that she picked a hearing date more than 90 days in the future. Because a motion to dismiss is a potentially "dispositive" motion, MN local court rule 7.1(b)(1) would have allowed Judge Nelson to set the hearing date as early as 42 days after the date the motion will be filed: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-7-1.html So why did Judge Nelson set the hearing date so far out into the future? Your explanation is entirely plausible, and may be right. It would be interesting to know if similar motions in other cases were being set for hearings that far in the future because the court simply has a crowded schedule, or if this case got unusual scheduling treatment. Hard to tell which it is from what I've read so far, but unusual treatment seems more likely. I think there might be a potential downside for the players, however, resulting from the delayed hearing date on any NFL motion to dismiss the antitrust complaint. There is at least some possibility that the forthcoming 8th Circuit opinion will accept the NFL's argument that the pending unfair labor practice charge before the NLRB is a threshold issue that should be decided before things go forward in Judge Nelson's court. In short, if the union's March 11, 2011 decertification was a sham, then the 6 month clock you mention never really started. If things play out that way in the 8th Circuit and the NLRB, the players could potentially have their entire antitrust complaint dismissed when Judge Nelson eventually considers the NFL's motion. I'm not suggesting that this outcome is likely - - just that it's also possible. I view that as a good thing. The players have an incentive to negotiate a global settlement, rather than awaiting future court decisions, because the scenario I outlined above could totally destroy the players' negotiating leverage. Likewise, the NFL also has an incentive to negotiate a global settlement, rather than awaiting future court decisions, because the scenario you outlined could decimate the owners' negotiating leverage. Let's hope that both sides have a healthy fear of unknown, and therefore potentially detrimental future court decisions, and negotiate for a known outcome now. An effective mediator will hammer on those fears to try to get both sides to find middle ground. =========================================================================== A few unrelated points: 1. I agree with your opinion (expressed elsewhere) that discovery of NFL finances will tend to move negotiations along. Do you know if formal discovery has been allowed to start in the trial court? IIRC, there was a dispute about when formal discovery should start, but I don't know if or how it was resolved. 2. The sooner one side or the other incurs significant financial hardship, the sooner a new CBA will get signed. I hope neither side gets access to the disputed TV contract money any time soon. 3. The following article seems to be a relatively neutral evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each side's positions just prior to the 8th Circuit oral argument: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202495912122&hbxlogin=1 4. Here's a link to the NLRB's own flow chart (the first one) showing how an unfair labor practice charge is decided by the NLRB. I don't know the typical time frame for getting from (a) filing the initial charge to (b) getting an NLRB decision: http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb-process

Got it - - my default works the same way. Thanks for the help!

Just found this link. My apologies if it was previously posted, but a couple of TSW topic seaches got no hits. Depending on how the 8th Circuit decides the appeal argued last week, the simultaneously pending National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") proceedings could play a more prominent role in how the current labor dispute eventually gets resolved. Here's the text of the unfair labor practices charge against the NFLPA, as filed with the NLRB by the NFL on Valentine's Day - - The NFL basically said - - "Hugs and kisses Demaurice!" http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=756:complete-text-of-nfl-charges-against-nflpa-for-unfair-labor-practices&catid=53:documents&Itemid=77 P.S. Is there an easy way to jump back to the topics posted a few months ago? I started to go back towards Valentine's Day posts to see if this was posted back then, but quickly gave up after only being able to go back 2 or 3 pages at a time. I resorted to making educated guesses about key word searches that might find it, but got no obvious hits in the topic titles I pulled up.