ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Dodgers ranked 9th among major league baseball teams in attendance/game after 31 home games this season. LA Angels of Anaheim ranked 4th after 28 home games. http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance ================================================== The Dodgers' recent financial problems are largely (but not solely) the result of incredibly bad financial management by married co-owners who compounded the problem by seeking an extremely ugly and financially draining divorce: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-dodgers-mccourts

I particularly like those three. I also nominate Michael Jasper as a similarly sized, but hopefully much more athletic version of, Jabba the Hutt. If Jasper and Dareus get on the field together, they'd be the Hutt and the Hulk!

I typically learn more from discussing things with people who don't share my views, as opposed to people who are in total agreement with me. I rarely learn anything from them. So if you have time, let's talk about this a bit. I don't claim to have your expertise but I disagree. Nothing in "that clause" even mentions league rules or suspension of players for violating them. If you actually read the player contract, there is an entirely separate paragraph that deals with player suspension. It reads (at page 253/301 of the CBA): "15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledgeshis awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract. The "literally shackled" and "slavery" notions are hyperbole - - some people resort to it when they fear that logic alone doesn't adequately support their position. But maybe it's understandable when I'm suggesting that someone not be allowed to work wherever they want - - at first glance that does have an un-American ring to it. But the question isn't whether it sounds un-American, the question is whether courts would enforce a contract provision restricting a current employee's right to walk away from his employer and work for someone else - - whenever, wherever and however he chooses, regardless of what his existing employment contract says. Again, I don't claim to have your expertise, but google somewhat levels the playing field. My impression is that many states (though not all) WILL enforce a contract putting restrictions on where an existing employee can work even AFTER that employee's employment has ended. See: https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Journals/LaborAndEmploymentLawJournal/labor_vol24no2_Swift.pdf I'm suggesting that the NFL would have to ask a court to do even less - - enforce a contract term preventing an NFL player from playing football in some other league during the time that his existing NFL contract has not yet expired. I agree, and it's an interesting idea that could be raised by a player seeking to avoid his contractual obligation. But doesn't unconscionability usually get raised as a defense when there is a great difference in bargaining power between the parties to the contract? I don't see that here. The sample player contract is part of the old CBA, which resulted from very lengthy negotiations between parties with great financial resources, and who were represented by high-priced negotiators. Besides, if I was an NFL owner, the current NFL players who I would most want to enjoin are the same players who would find it most difficult to assert an unconscionability defense. If Jon Corto or Namaan Roosevelt go play in a new league, Ralph may not care. The owners would only have to seek injunctions against the most famous (and therefore typically most well paid) players that might draw fans and TV contracts to the new league. But a famous player like Drew Brees, who has already made millions of dollars and has a base salary many times higher than that of any judge, is going to have a hard time convincing a court that his family will starve if he can't break his existing multi-million dollar contract. He already has a multi-million dollar signing bonus in his pocket as a result of the very same contract he now wants to break. If I was forced to take your side of the argument, I would look for some credible way to argue that the owners can't enforce the Drew Brees contract because the owners already breached it. Can you think of any argument along those lines?

So does this mean: 1. Eric Wood is a Wookie; 2. Fragile Trent Edwards was Princess Lea; 3. OJ Simpson was Darth Vader; 4. Doug Flutie was Yoda; and 5. Jim Kelly was Luke Skywalker?

Maybe - - but what happens when the NFL's lawyers threaten a tortious interference with contract suit against those OTHER rich SOBs, and follow it up with suits against the superior players seeking injunctions to prevent such superior players from ever playing a down in the new league (at least for the unexpired term of their existing NFL contracts), based on the contract language quoted below? I'm open to any rationally based explanation to the contrary, but I think the players already gave up the right to play in any other league for the duration of their existing contracts. Conversely, at least in the parts I've read so far (it's REEEEAAALLLLYYYY long), the old CBA did not require the owners to give up the right to hire replacement players. The recently expired CBA is publicly available, and contains a sample player contract. See Article XIV, section 1, at page 40/301 of the CBA here: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf "Section 1. Form: The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix C will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended without the approval of the Management Council and the NFLPA." The sample contract attached as Exhibit C in turn reads, at page 248/301 of the CBA "Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored by the League unless the game is first approved by the League. * * * * Without prior written consent of the Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football otherwise than for Club . . . * * * * Player ... agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club" ================================================================================== Serious question - - is there some legal reason why the NFL owners could not simultaneously (1) lock out the current players, (2) hire replacement players, and (3) enforce the contract terms quoted above to prevent the locked-out players from playing football in any other league? A material breach of the contract by the owners would prevent them from enforcing the above provisions, but exactly how have the owners materially breached the existing player contracts? Help me think about it.

Lawn mowing issues can get complicated, and are not always intuitive, especially if supposedly superior Canadian lawn mowing equipment is involved. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130111-toronto-taking-the-bills-is-like-my-ex-wife/

This is an example of "knocking down straw men." My only prior posts in this thread were post #s 30, 36 and 39. Although I can be pretty long-winded at times, those three were short. They contain no such claim.

The businessman's hope is that it MORE than offsets the cost of servicing the debt, thereby increasing the percent return on the amount of his own capital that the businessman actually invested. The shorthand term for this is "leverage." If you use leverage to buy an asset and it increases in value, you can get higher percentage returns on the amount of capital invested than if you paid 100% cash for the same asset. But leverage is risky, because it magnifies any losses too, not just any gains. A common use of leverage is buying a house. Most people make a down payment with their own cash that amounts to only 5% to 20% of the total purchase price, and use a mortgage to borrow the rest. But there are some people who just use cash they already have to make the purchase. The article below has a chart with straightfoward calculations showing how you can get a higher percentage return on the amount of cash you actually invest if you borrow money to purchase a house, as opposed to using 100% of your own cash to make the same purchase, if the house goes up in value. http://www.ipinglobal.com/ipin-live/article/278368/a-basic-guide-to-leverage So debt isn't always bad - - but it appears, at least from the Forbes estimates, that the Bills have more debt than a lot of people assume.

First, I think there is plenty of blame for both sides in the labor dispute. If you think posting information about coach's contract provisions that I do not recall seeing elsewhere on TBD is "making a big deal" about the lockout and being overly critical of the owners, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But mainly, you're just being ornery. Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the coach's association did not contact even one coach anywhere in the world before filing the amicus brief. Even if that were true, the coach's association must have had SOME reason for filing it (even if every single NFL coach in hindsight also thinks it was a bad idea). I identified my speculation as exactly that . . . speculation. It may turn out to be correct speculation, or it may turn out to be incorrect speculation, but nothing in your post tends to suggest which it will be. I'll probably regret this, but go ahead and enlighten me. Why do YOU think the coach's association filed the amicus brief in support of the players? Or do you think it was a totally random event . . . kind of like the Big Bang theory for creation of the universe. BOOM! Amicus brief filed by coach's association for absolutely no reason whatsoever. BTW, thanks for the link - - it actually had some useful information.

There are plenty of opinions in the OP that I diasagree with. I think Ralph has his faults, but in my personal opinion his willingness to keep the Bills in Buffalo more than compensates for them. So I am generally a fan of his, but not blindly so. In the interest of factual accuracy . . . 1. Whenever I see posts containing obvious "cut and paste" quotations without a link to the original source material it makes me wonder why. So I "tried it on for size" and found it didn't fit because it was too small. Your source was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wilson Here's the part you edited out: "However, the Buffalo Bills will be celebrating 50 years of playing professional football in Buffalo during the 2009 season. Mr. Wilson was officially inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, August 8, 2009 with ESPN Sports icon Chris Berman acting as his "presenter". Wilson was scheduled to receive his Hall of Fame ring in a halftime ceremony during the Bills game against the Cleveland Browns on October 11, 2009.[2] However, Wilson cancelled the event at the last moment, without notifying the press or fans, and no explanation was given. It was widely speculated that Wilson cancelled the event out of fear of being booed by Bills fans for the team's chronic poor performance on the field and a series of highly unpopular managerial decisions.[3] Thoroughbred racing Ralph Wilson has also been involved for a number of years in the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing both as a breeder and as an owner in France and the United States. He notably bred Santa Anita Derby winner, Jim French as well as two-year-old European susperstar Arazi, winner of the 1991 Breeders' Cup Juvenile and European Horse of the Year. [4] Another horse, Outta Here, raced in the 2003 Kentucky Derby and finished in seventh place." 2. As for your derisive comments about the revenues generated by the Bills in comparison to the Packers and Steelers, the best source I know of for that information is Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html For the 2009 season Forbes says: Revenue Steelers - - - $243 million Packers - - - $242 million Bills - - - - - $228 million Operating Income (EBITDA) Bills - - - - - $28.2 million Steelers - - - $17.9 million Packers - - - $ 9.8 million At least for 2009, while Ralph had $14 or $15 million less in revenues (a difference of less than 7%), his operating income was almost three times that of the Packers, and a little less than twice that of the Steelers. The 7% revenue difference does NOT explain the success differential between the small market Bills, on the one hand, and the small market Steelers and Packers, on the other. As I said, I'm generally a fan of Ralph's. But don't deride others' opinions if you don't have the facts, either.

Based solely on his college career and draft position (no way to know if he was really gonna be an NFL star): "RB Ki-Jana Carter, Penn State, 1995 Bengals moved up to take him first overall and gave him a then-record $7.1 million signing bonus. Owner Mike Brown called him the team's ``bell cow.'' Tore ACL in his left knee on his third preseason carry in Detroit, ending the season and starting a career cut short by injuries at every turn."

My brother Darryl says when Jerry was little, Jerry's momma had to tie pork chops to his ears so the dog 'ud play with 'im.

I have frequently seen it stated here that the Bills have no debt service - - I tended to believe it because (1) the statements were made by rational and seemingly well-informed people, and (2) it meshed nicely with the notion that Ralph Wilson follows conservative, old-school business practices that have enabled him to make a profit even in a small and declining market like Buffalo. After all, he originally bought in for about what a new car costs these days, and has watched his investment grow. But is it true that the Bills have no debt service? Maybe not. Take another look at this August 25, 2010 Forbes chart on NFL team valuations that has been posted in several other threads: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_DOV.html Based on information for the 2009 season, Forbes estimates (after applying the information in the chart footnotes about how the terms are defined) that the Buffalo Bills had: 1. 2009 revenue of $228 million; 2. 2009 operating income (EBITDA) of $28.2 million; and 3. a then-estimated value (without deduction for debt other than any stadium debt) of $799 million. But there is a another column we never talk about. It says that if you include whatever stadium debt they may have had in the team's debt, then: 4. in 2009 the Bills had a debt/value ratio of 16%. How should we interpret that 16% number? For starters, although I welcome any additional information (regardless of where it leads), I am not aware of any source indicating that the Bills have any stadium debt. I haven't researched the original funding for Ralph Wilson Stadium, so maybe the Bills have some lingering original stadium debt that I've never heard about, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the current Bills lease to support the notion that the Bills have any stadium debt: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml If my assumption that the Bills have no stadium debt is correct, then we can get rid of some of the qualifiers for the Forbes estimates, and it simplifies to - - the Bills have: 3. a then-estimated value (without deduction for debt) of $799 million; and 4. non-stadium related debt in the 2009 season equal to 16% of $799 million. ($799 million) X (0.16) = $127.8 million. $127.8 million is not a crushing debt load for a growing business with 2009 revenues of $228 million, but it's not totally insignificant, either. And certainly not the conventional wisdom around here. So why $127.8 million in debt in 2009? --- Lockout war chest? --- Didn't get much on the Taurus trade-in? --- Confidential loan from the closely held Bills to help his other business interests (that I never read much of anything about) survive the Great Recession? --- Al Davis needed another loan? --- ??? Comments welcome - and if I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time), please point it out, especially if you have a link to support your ideas about what I missed. P.S. I've always been more comfortable with cash-based accounting, even though it's my understanding that nearly all large businesses use accrual-based accounting methods. Is there some feature of accrual-based accounting, as applied to the way the Bills do business, that would make their debt seem artificially high in the Forbes chart? If so, maybe that explains why Forbes thinks the Bills had $127.8 million in 2009 debt, even though the conventional wisdom is that the team has no debt service. Then again, maybe the conventional wisdom is just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time for that, either.

I think this fairly accurately presents the way the owners look at their financial choices, with one exception. You are assuming that it will take a lost full season for the owners to get economic concessions from the players that would make up, over the full term of a new CBA, for lost game-related revenue (including the TV revenue) for however many games are lost. Just my opinion, but I think it will take less. Why? Because if your assumption about a new CBA having a 6 to 8 year term is correct, the owners will have 6-8 years to recover their lost work stoppage revenue through reduced player costs over the full term of the CBA. Conversely, the average player will be in the league for less than 6-8 years, so for any given player who eventually votes on whether to accept a proposed new CBA deal, that player has less time to recover work stoppage losses than his team's owner. And that's true even if you make the dubious assumption that the owners and players are financial equals in other respects (e.g., equally deep pockets to start with, equal advance planning for the effects of the work stoppage, equal ability to get loans to meet cash flow requirements during the work stoppage, etc.). Moreover, even if you somehow think that the average NFL career also lasts 6-8 years, roughly half of the players who will be voting on any proposed new CBA will already be half-way through that 6-8 year career at the time of the vote. Such players would only have 3-4 years to recover their work stoppage losses. Stated differently, if the proposed term of any new CBA really is 6-8 years, then the owners can withstand a longer work stoppage, as compared to the players, before the owners lose the ability to recover their work stoppage losses from future game-related revenue. I don't know if your assumption about a likely 6-8 year term for a new CBA is accurate, but it seems to me like the owners have a structural bargaining advantage if the proposed term of any future CBA is more than 1/2 of the length of an average NFL career. Just my 2 cents - - but this seems logical to me.

If you ever find a nice local pub owned by someone originally from Buffalo, and that pub isn't very crowded so they always put the Bills' game on the biggest screen directly over the bar with sound, and the next season the huge local Jets fan club decides to make this particular pub their home base and commandeer that TV, and you make a special effort to be there for the Bills v. Jets game that year and your significant other won't go with you because you've been known to say things like "Little guys get in groups, big guys single file," and you tell the guy who wants to wave the Jets flag on the landing above a crowd of 50 or so obnoxious Jets fans that he can wave his silly flag all day long but it will be a cold day in _____ before you will step aside to let him do it front and center where you happen to be standing - - - you might be a Bills fan.

The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootba...o-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.co...kout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches and executives contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout.

The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 — March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/18/nflpa-document-details-nfl-path-to-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.com/2011/02/24/nfl-nflpa-historical-lockout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches’ and executives’ contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days’ notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days’ notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout.

If you ever win the lottery, can we all party at your place?

From the oldest (1/23/11) article: "According to Hamilton’s general manager of finance Rob Rossini the tentative plan calls for the Ticats to play their home games during the construction process at McMaster University’s Ron Joyce Stadium. The capacity at McMaster is 6,000, but city staff suggests 10,000 seats could be added to boost capacity to around 16,000."

I suspect they learned plenty. The NFL hired a very experienced labor-relations law attorney, Bob Batterman, who says he represented the NHL during not one but TWO lockouts. They hired him in March, 2008, about 2 months before the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the CBA. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080310/This-Weeks-News/NFL-Brings-In-Veteran-Labor-Lawyer.aspx Batterman is apparently not the lead NFL negotiator, but he is advising the NFL. Here's an excerpt of what he said on or about 1/13/11 during an interview now posted on an NFL-related website: http://nfllabor.com/2011/01/13/transcript-of-bob-batterman-interview-with-ap/ "I had the experience with two NHL lockouts. Nobody else had that experience in professional sports. So I was in a natural place to be hired. If you are going to opt out of an agreement, if you are unhappy with the agreement, and you are seeking concessions, you have to be aware that you may be required to lock out to get the union to agree, in which case you want the best lawyer around to do it."

I think that may have been under consideration at one time, but here's a slightly more recent (2/26/11) article stating it will be "renovated:" http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/493414--ivor-wynne-gets-pan-am-approval The following article has a few more details about proposed reconstruction plans, but it is dated 1/23/11, so it's possible that some of the details changed en route to getting final approvals: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/23/ivor-wynne-reconstruction-faces-funding-gap/ "It remains unclear how long construction will take. The city report indicates the rebuild project may keep the Ticats out of Ivor Wynne for two seasons. The city has budgeted about $7-million in transitional costs to help the Ticats survive the seasons when Ivor Wynne is unusable."

Asking for a list of "all" such companies is unreasonable. If you actually want insights into how at least some judges and courts think about the issue, please read the following excerpts (ALJ = administrative law judge), taken from: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/880/880.F2d.1422.88-1084.html "The Dubuque Packing Company is a closely-held corporation engaged in meat processing and packaging. The company operated a plant in Dubuque, Iowa, handling beef and pork. During the entire relevant period, the Dubuque plant was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union . . ." * * * * * * "As the ALJ stated his interpretation of events, it was not until the announcement of the proposed transfer of work to a different plant that "the Union realized how much more severe had been the consequences of rejecting the Respondent's wage freeze proposal then [sic ] had been previously made known by the Company." ALJ op. at 26. The union officials "had no way of knowing whether the 8 June concessions then being requested were justified,"1 and hence the leadership of the union responded by requesting detailed financial information about all the company's operations. ALJ op. at 27 & n. 39. The company balked at the extensive request, stating that it was "so extensive as to be unreasonable both as to subject matter and volume...." ALJ op. at 31." * * * * * * "At the June 28 membership meeting, which was attended by over 2,000 people, the union leadership recommended that the company's wage freeze/profit sharing proposal be rejected until after the union had been afforded the opportunity to review the company's books. In the end, the membership agreed, voting overwhelmingly to deny the company the concessions it sought." * * * * * * "1 Because the company was a closely-held corporation about which the union had no information, the ALJ apparently accepted the genuineness of the union's need to obtain this information from the company directly. Moreover, the ALJ's discussion appears to be sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested, apparently accepting the union's position that "in order to intelligently determine its position with regard to the contract concessions then being demanded, the Union would require an overview of the Company's entire financial picture." ALJ op. at 29 ================================================================= Whether the union ever actually got to see the extensive books and records it requested turned on the outcome of an issue that was remanded back to a lower court, so I don't know if the union ultimately received the financial records it requested. The above excerpts make it clear, however, that the administrative law judge involved in the case was "sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested."

Because people who post and/or lurk here are widely geographically dispersed, if the lockout lasts long enough, you can find the "fat chick" at these locations across Canada: http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/canadian-football/canada/cfl/

Ivor Wynne 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.

Nothing really surprising here - - my apologies if this was previously posted but my topic search got no hits on it. http://www.hackneypublications.com/sla/archive/001260.php "The impetus for the lawsuit was the decision of the New York Giants and the New York Jets to require season ticket holders to purchase personal seat licenses as a way to defray the cost of building a new stadium."