ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

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.

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."