Hplarrm

Thanks fer pointin' out the role of politicos. Part of the story of Cleveland politicos bating the NFl when owner Modell simply went for bigger bucks was that the Cleve and state of OH politicos bulldozed the NFL to restore a franchise to Cleveland. I agree that Buff and NYS political leaders are generally idiots, but if you talk to most Clevelanders there politicos are pretty stupid as well. If the Bills were to move, my sense is that a federal attack on the limited antitrust exemptions enjoyed by the NFL would be under attack. The key here is that while such a move might not (or probably would not) succeed the mere threat creates market uncertainty the NFL would not like. I think the team owners make a deal to stay in Buffalo.

I think the key misunderstanding by most observers here is that they simply do not realize that beginning with Pete Rozelle forging a system which embraced the NFL as a social compact which rewarded poorer teams rather ideologic commitment to a traditional capitalist model which rewards better performing teams, the $ produced merely by the local market became secondary to larger amount of $ produced by the V networks. Rozelle fostered an NFL where all teams share equally the TV money regardless of whether they win or lose on the field. He fostered an NfL where the worse teams get better draft picks. This movement toward a more socialist perspective advanced rapidly when after the team owners destroyed the NFLPA in the mid-80s labor battle, they retaliated by threatening to decertify and thus force the owners into being true capitalists in how the NFL worked. The owners ran kicking and screaming to embrace the social compact embodied in the CBA. This move was capped when Gene Upshaw announced the end of using designated gross to determine the cap and declared the player share of the total gross receipts needed to start at 60% (60.5 is what the owners and players finally agreed to). In the end, the NFL will do what makes them more $ and there are more dollars to be made by team owners with the socialist based approach than the pure capitalist approach. Them is just the facts.

I know there was one thread which was started by a likely lurker and had even more misspellings than even I pull off. However, though the real answer is no one knows fer sure, but looking at the situation I am becoming quite convinced the Bills will remain right here in WNY. To me the important reasons seem to be: 1. You can almost always count on the NFL to go where there is the most $ for the team owners to be made. To ne this would seem for the NFL team owners to be not from the huge but relative chump change of 1/31xst of a relocation fee from the team being moved, but from maintaining the actual value that this original AFL team provides for the NFL going after the real much larger dollars from setting up new franchises in new municipalities around he world. I simply think many of us fans and the media simply are misreading the actual marketplace the NFL is getting $ from and which the NFL plans to grow. Many of us outsiders make the MISTAKE of thinking that the biggest $ the NFL is looking to increase is the take from individual markets. Nope. Don't get me wrong but the money gained from 40,000 plus season ticket holders, cash for parking, all the hot dogs and weinies they can consume and even local advertisers is huge $. However, the combined local takes still pales in size compared to the REAL HUGE $ from the TV networks which the NFL brings in. Making even bigger $ in the future does not depend on whether the NFL exploits the bigger LA market rather than the smaller Buffalo market (and splits that local take with 31 other partners. The real money and the one the NFL wants to satisfy and expand is to acquire a bunch of eyeballs in Mexico City, Toronto, Stutugart. and even figure out the timezone implications of accessing eyeballs in Tokyo an Beijing. Buffalo's prime value to the NFL and quite frankly one which can never be equaled by some dot.commer in CA or gambling mogul in Vegas is that by maintaining this original AFL team and selling to the eyeballs in a new franchise membership in the same league as the American icon of Buffalo, keeping the Bills here is quie fine for the NFL team owner looking to make as much money as possible for themselves. 2. Ralph has quite nicely passed on his estate in a manner which makes it hard for the team to leave for at least 7 and probably 10 years. The contract developed before Ralph dies essentially presents a bunch of legal realities and uncertainties which make it hard for a new owner to move the team for at least 7 years and probably for all 10 (even if the Bills are sold in the short golden window of 7 years where the decision to move only costs 20+ million rather than $400+ million, the team may still be forced by the contract to remain here the full 10 while the contractually prohibited discussion of the logistics of franchise movement and building a stadium in their new town are worked out. The contract seems to guarantee that at worse, a new owner would be sued by Erie county/ and/or WNY residents beginning in some local WNY court which in essence would keep the team here even while appeals are going on for the entire 7-10 years. During that time the NFL story displayed in TV show after TV show would be the sad tale of our depressed municipality seeing its team leave in a slow motion version of the midnight run from Baltimore to Indy. And while this drama drags on the NFL would be working to sell franchises to new municipalities who though overjoyed with their new NFL toy would also have to witness the sad fate the NFL can deal to a municipality. 3. Given the choice between the money associated with Buffalo and the money associated with Toronto, the NFL choice seems obvious. They want both! We simply have a real world example of how Toronto and Buffalo can each easily support 2 hickey teams, and there is little reason to somehow pretend they also cannot support two football teams. The financial deal here with the recently postponed Bills game per season in Toronto was NOT about testing a move but the Bills trying to build a case of Toronto being their territory so that they might more easily extort payments from the new owner. 4. People misunderstanding who is the actual decision-maker here. It is not the high bidder. It is the NFL which must furnish a 75% vote of a new owner. The team is not simply sold to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets but to the highest bidder the partnership wants rather than the individual. If some relative of Osana Bin Laden, oligarch from Russia or who ever, the NFL cannot be forced to take on any partner. 5. The players have also already demonstrated in the case of Rush Limbaugh that they have the power as a partner of the team owners to block a partner from being part of a bid. I suspect that players from minority descent would object to the Donald who ridiculously has player the Obama is from Kenya card and is not above making repeated foolish statements about what the black people should do. Given his past ties to gambling and his general obnoxious nature my guess is that he either gets blocked or he just playing this for publicity. In the end the Bills are much smaller potatoes for an NFL owner to get 1/31st of additions they add to the pot than Buffalo. The current season ticket base and deals with local advertisers are clearly smaller than other locales but they are a bird in the hand for the NFL and I think inertia keeps the team here.

Given a choice between focusing on building a great team and finding a good QB who is essential to taking them over the top OR instead focusing on finding a great QB to make his team great, I think past events in the NFL show success comes from building the team first. I think a big part of the Buffalo problem has been in too much focus on trying to find the next once in a lifetime Jim Kelly and not enough on overall team building. This appears to have changed with the new regime. On O, they have built one of the best acheiving running attacks even with inconsistent OL play. The draft saw us get at least 1 and probably 2 immediate OL contributors AND we took a flyer on a top flight physical talent with a discipline problem. Even better we pulled off a deal which gives us a good plan C at RB. Likewise on D, this team has achieved real production in sacks to build on and seems on paper to have id'ed specific players to improve the run stopping game. I nam comfortable with Manual maybe being good enough to lead this team, and if not then we go FA

it's a pretty foolhardy exercise to compare the market value of one year's draft versus market value in another year's draft as in essence they are different markets. Further, even within a draft, a specific trade may be a stupid trade for one team, but the same deal basically may be a smart trade for another team which is in a different position. The NFL draft is actually fun because of the many variables. In essence, trading away next year's first rounder (or even most of next year's draft)to get the one player which you believe will deliver you an SB this year would be a deal most teams would make. Is a third round pick worth more than a 1st round pick? Obviously not. However, woulkd you rather have third round pick Joe Montana or 1st round pick Mike Williams? I would take the third rounder all day and twice on Sunday. If EJ and Watkins click (and EJ avoids the seeming random occurrence of injury) then I simply do not care who trades which pick for which or whom next year.

The thing which is likely to make the 2015 draft a horrible thing is the overhype and often silly speculation about who we will select with our 1st round choice. With no1st rounder next year, it actually may be quite nice as any speculation will be quite silly. On the other hand, the absence of a 1st round pick will be no damper whatsoever and the hype just spins off into madness.

I gave up on predicting compensation results when the Bills were awarded a 3rd round pick for losing Friggin Lonnie. Its a black box.

The fourth round pick Cockrell is noted in a couple of write-ups about the clear role he played in college as an ST player. The Bills ST was simply not up to snuff last year s the drafting of players who received unusual noting of their ST play is great to hear. The selection of Preston Brown in the 3rd was notable also as Whaley has already noted in this draft that a team demands immediate contributions from their first three picks. 1st rounder Watkins is clearly targeted to be our #1 WR and second round pick Kouandjio is said to have been seen as a 1st rounder and we are hoping he will start at RT. However, it is clear that we are gonna start Spikes at MLB, so if Waley expedts immediate contribution from Brown its gotta be ST. An LB has the body type to hope for that so we will see.

This one will be easy to see as the proof will be in the pudding. If Williams demands a dt from opponents then Watkins will likely be a terror. The real fun will be when the Bills O sees opponents are forced to put 8 guys in the box to stop handoffs to Spiller in a 3WR set and then the Bills shift into an empty backfield with Spiller moving out as a WR opponents would then be forced to shift up and have LBs cover Spiller and one of the WRs one on one with an LB.

I think trading SJ was the right move IF the coaches correctly interpret him as being a cancerous element for the team. I do not think he is but easily can be wrong on this as I am not in the lockerroom. Trading him makes little football sense to me because though I agree he has not proven to be the definite go-guy you want for a #1WR (His overall #s as our statistically leading WR for several seasons consistently at the 1000 yard mark and in particular his impressive work against Darelle REvis are real and very good to me) show he must be accounted for by opponents. I think folks who for some reason feel he is redundant due to Watkins make the mistake that why yes you can only have 1 QB, you can have two productive WRs on the field at the same time. I feel like we will miss an opportunity as both Watkins and SJ demanded a double team (he has demonstrated that even a great CB like a Revis needed help. Williams/Woods need to prove they are that good.

1. Why does one have to choose between Johnson and Watkins? I know there is general acceptance of the Marv bromide that if your team has possible starters at QB then your team has no starter at QB, but this does not apply at all at WR where you are gonna have two starters anyway. Maybe our fan brains are two small to accept having two WRs with the potential to be 2 1000 yd receivers, but I would have much preferred to see them both play for the Bills and let on field production and developed chemistry with EJ decide who is the #1 WR,

ood point! Not only does SJ have little trade value for a team to give up anything for him when they likely can get him for free IF the Bills are done with him, but it hurts the Bill's salary cap to move him. SJ's highest value for this team is to have him enjoy the benefits of getting to feast on weaker CBs if Watkins demands a dt and/or the opponents #1 CB. In this world, SJ gets the dual benefits of: 1. Being on a winning team as he and Watkins place a heavy burden on opposing Ds as they have to decide which of them gets singled. 2. He sets himself up for a big FA contract ala the one Peerless collected when he hit FA as the Bills clear #2 WR but a potential #1 for his new team. The Watkins pick is money in the bank for Johnson if he stays with the Bills and he has little trade value if the Bills (or he) decide to let him go.

There was no option presented which makes sense to me as I think he has little trade value as any team that wants him more likely will wait to see if he available as an FA if the Bills decide they must move him. Why give up any value for him in a trade when you may well get him for free. In part because I see the Bills getting little for him in trade, I actually would advocate the Bills not trade him but keep him as I think he adds more value for the team as our #2 WR (though my guess is that he is called WR 1A with Watkins also being described as WR 1A on our depth chart. I think the conventional wisdom will be among us fans that a redundant WR MUST be moved, but I think this conventional wisdom is flawed thinking. While there is some truth to Marv's view that if a team has two starting QBs it has no starting QB, it is wrong-headed and bad football to insist we only must have one #1 WR. In fact, the Watkins pick will likely be hailed by Stevie J because it benefits him directly: 1. The Bills have made a clear decision to go O rather than go D as there means of winning and this and further by devoting major resources to WR rather than seeking a natural replacement for with Jackson or CJ (both in the last years of their contracts) the Bills have made not only a clear decision to go O but a clear decision to pass more rather than grind it out with more running. 2. Once they decide to throw more passes, even if this decision is made to get more Watkins into the game it benefits Johnson directly. On every pass play, EJ is going to be required to go through his entire progression of reads. Even if Watkins is the primary receiver, unless it is a hot route which sees EJ immediately throw to Watkins, EJ is going to read and consider throwing to Johnson. If Jo0hnson is as good as he thinks he is, his emphasis will be to get such a good break on his route and to obviously over match the CB on him each play is going to demand EJ go to him. 3. I is going to be a boon for SJ production if in fact Watkins plays so well he demands opponents put their #1 CB on him or double team him. Let's say Watkins is so great that an opponent must assign a Darelle Revis to him or double cover him with their best safety. This means that SJ gets to feast on the opponents #2 CB and enjoy single coverage. His production goes way up and the money he commands when he is an FA goes way up as well. The drafting of Watkins is flat out beneficial to the number of chances and real looks EJ gives to SJ and helps SJ and the Bills win. Why trade him particularly when he has little trade value to be gained?

I see a bunch of conventional wisdom being adopted in many posts on this pick, but caution folks to think for themselves as the CW is often wrong. I think the bills who likely are happiest to see Watkins get on the Bills bus are: A. Stevie Johnson!- The CW judges him to be a redundant goner as a Bill whose primary reaction to this pick of Watkins is likely disappointment over no longer being #1 WR or anger at seeing WR be judged a position of need. However, my sense is that if you judge Johnson to be strongly motivated by 3 factors, 1. What is likely to make his team a winner, 2. What is likely to improve his personal productivity, 3 What will give him the biggest payday, then you realize the CW is probably wrong as the Watkins pick helps achieve goals in all three areas. 1. Watkins is a big investment in the O and an O guy must be pleased about this! NE simply had one of the most productive Os in football last year and if the Bills are to improve they simply need to either score more points or stop the opponents. The Bills have made a clear choice to go O! Anyone who chooses to judge this as a zero-sum game where Watkins addition means less Stevie is probably wrong. Off the top the Bills have chosen less running and depending on CJ/Fred and instead more pass plays where even if Watkins is EJs first choice he I going to go through his reads on every pass play and if the wily vet Johnson gets good initial separation he will a fair share of EJ passes. he Watkins pick is likely a boon and challenge for Stevie if you believe we are going to see even greater commitment to the pass and EJ is going to go through his reads (including Stevie on every play. 2. Personally Stevie is at worse going to face the opponents # 1 CB with less help as Watkins demands attention. In an even better world for Stevie production Watkins attracts opponents #1 and Stevie gets to pick on the opponents #2 CB instead of dueling with Darelle Revis. 3. Lets say Whaley stupidly trades Johnson for the chump change he rest of the league will get for him since folks know he is a goner as a Bill. Johnaon now gets traded to a new team which clearly sees him as their #1 WR or even gets to sign a new contract if the Bills simply panic and release him. All three ways Johnson benefits from the Watkins pick. B. EJ- Obvious beneficiary of getting another offensive playmaker talent. C. Jeff Lewis- He has gotta be even happier than EJ because the only way he plays is if EJ gets hurt (which EJ has clearly shown a penchant to do already) but this now means that if/when Lewis comes in he has to make the offense work but now will do so with an impressive retinue of receiving talent. If EJ gets hurt, until yesterday I would have judged it impossible to do this. However, the addition of Watkins probably makes any task faced by Lewis a lot easier to do. Watkins add a lot to this team if he and EJ develop chemistry, but more important improvement will be if EJ goes out 3 or so games as he may well do Lewis has a much better chance of being a productive QB throwing to Watkins/Johnson than if he was throwing to Johnson Woods. D. CJ may be under more pressure since Watkins occupies the space as the new Bills wunderkind. However Fred has gotta be pleased as if Watkins made add a year to his career as the new go-to guy on 3rd down for the Bills.

Victors write the history. If EJ turns out well, Whaley would likely remain the Bills GM and can write the story (or it remains to the advantage of his minions and the media to write a positive story for him) that it was Whaley's choice (primarily). If EJ turns out poorly then Waley wants to share the blame with others and even better Nix is retired which makes it to the advantage of most still around to blame him for this choice which did not work. We'll see.

What does Darryl (either one as they appear equally moronic) say about to what extent is this document about public things (probate decisions strike me as a public thang) either available or figurable out.

I think they will (and hope they do as this team is more than 1 player away from being a serious playoff winning possibility and thus need multiple 1-3 round picks to maximize good potential for multiple starters) trade down. There is a reason why almost all mock drafts simply ignore trade possibilities in making predictions. To do this would predicting mean not only fearlessly predicting an unknown, but also fearlessly predicting the interaction between 2 (or 3) unknowns. Predicting trades is not simply fearless but stupid.

I agree that my rambles do not express their points accurately, otherwise you might understand I was recounting the actual facts of the 80s NFL labor dispute. Stated more sharply: 1. Using strong free market tactics, the NFL team owners destroyed the ED Garvey led NFLPA which employed traditional AFL-CIO tactics. 2. This allowed the talented tenth of NFL players led by Gene Upshaw to follow the advice of NYC lawyers and threaten to decertify the union. 3. This would have left the owners operating in the true free market which you seem to think is so profitable. The owners were not stupid enough to believe this because they saw that if the NFL actually was to use a true free market, the result would have been the richest teams would buy the best players and this skewed league of a few winners and a lot of losers would be a lesser product. Also, ongoing labor unrest which made the product more erratic would have resulted in the TV nets investing less $. 4. The end result was that the team owners ran kicking and screaming to sign the CBA with the NFLPA which fully allowed the restraint of free commerce by the individual. Do you not understand that in a free market a player would sell his services to the highest bidder he could get so that he lived where he wanted. The current NFL is far from a free market as by agreement of the NFLPA, a 19 year old adult is not allowed to play pro football or that when a player is drafted he must play for that team. You do understand that in a capitalist free market, the team that wins games sells more tickets for their product can often buy the best players, but in the NFL governed by its social compacts, the worst teams are entitled to draft first and by rule get the first shot at FAs. Paul Tagliabue was able to convince the owners to sign onto a CBA which guaranteed the players 60.5% of the total revenues because the social compact model of the CBA was simply more profitable than the free market. As we now see the players becoming owners like The Kelly led group, or we see situations where the NFLPA successfully vetoed Rush Limbaugh as an owner and in the NBA it was player threats that appear to have done in Sterling, the product is getting less free market and more social compact driven. All signs point to the product being better and more profitable in conjunction with its rejection of the free market.

it was much shorter so as usual I added a bit.

You make the mistake of reading it. Folks always should be aware of their own brain capacity and avoid anything that they think exceeds it.

Your observation about this is why I prefer the Green Bay/geographic municipality ownership model to the well-capitalized former player model. While I find the former player model well superior to the current "fat-cat" owner model because I think organized workers are superior to the old money rich guys generally, in the end the former players are better but have the same moral limitations that all too often come along with wealth inequality (absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely). I think society is on journey. This journey is seeing progress from the "good" ol days when George Halas used to throw around nickels like they were manhole covers to the modern system where not only are the workers (NFLPA) partners with the team owners, but arguably the majority partners, to the quickly coming next step where he team owners will be a lot of former players. Perhaps the next step in progress on this journey will be development of a model based on ownership by, of, and for the people!

GGThe loss of Ralph Wilson for the Bills and the virtually certain forced sale of Clipper franchise has created an unprecedented moment where not only are two major sport franchises on the market at the same time, but more importantly the specific situations in the two cases (In the Bills case, single owner without an obvious heir apparent from minority partners or his family, and in the Clippers case an unexpected sale which may well be done by the other owners (if they vote 75% to take over and sale the team according to rules which Sterling agreed to by contract). There are a couple of side effects of this turn of events which may well impact WNY directly. 1. From my perspective (which in addition to being addicted to how team does on the field of play, I also am intrigued by the who owns the game duel between the tem owners and players. The real answer to me is both, but the NFL has been set-up since the George Halas days where simply what the team owners says rules because he has the capital. The NFL ownership battle was revolutionized INMO by Pete Rozelle who led the NFL into a model which is far more socialistic than the traditional individual oriented capitalist model. Rozelle made the correct calculus in my view that there was more money to be made and a better product to be produced and sold from social cooperation than capitalist competition (for example, in the NFL you get a better draft choice not by being good, but by being bad. In a normal capitalist model, team compete to get better rewards by winning, Rozelle however realized that the NFL produces a better more sustainable product by keeping the losers competitive and the worse you performed on the field the better draft choices, first crack at free agents and other goodies you got. Rozelle also pioneered the ultimate socialist compact in that the true big buck produced by the NFL (the TV contracts) were to be divided evenly among the partner teams rather than the better teams and bigger markets got the bigger bucks). It is my sense that it Is the NFLs commitment to social compacts rather than traditional capitalism which is the basis for the economic juggernaut which is the NFL today. My sense is that the major development in terms of how this socialist structure has played out was seen when the team owners simply kicked the AFL/CIO led Ed Garvey NFLPA in a mid 80s labor dispute. The NFLPA had a clear strategy of seeing individual players collect their small (in comparison today) salaries during the regular season and then threaten to strike in the playoffs where the owners would make their bucks from the networks. The owners destroyed this plan though by locking out the players during pre-season and bringing in college level talent as replacement players. It took about 3 games and the NFLPA cracked and the players came crawling back to work. However, the team owners ended up getting hoist on their own pertard. One othergreat in the short term move the NFL team owners had pulled off had been to download the cost of training and developing players to the colleges. In other sports like MLB, the teams drafted and bid on youngsters from the age of 16. They paid these kids )and more accurately their parents) small but larger and larger amounts of cash due to capitalistic competition to sign and train these prodspects. The MLB team owners paid for large and in depth systems for developing and training major league players in a minor league system. The NFL on the other hand developed a system where college teams played the role of minor league teams in baseball (there is a version of this in hockey though the NBA system is a version of the NFL system but still has bunch of warts being worked out like the one and done basketball prospects- but that is a whole nother conversation). The NFL has saved its team owners beaucoup bucks by seeing colleges (including many of us taxpayers who are paying to train Khalil Mack to play in the NFL) pay to train and develop players. One of the outcomes of this short-term benefit for the NFLK though has been this lay the groundwork for the CBA between the NFLPA and NFL which currently defines the NFL is that not only are players delayed in becoming the "property" of the owners, but also they do not gain affiliation with a team until they are 21 or older. Fortunately for the NFL most of the players are drug saddled and addled jocks who have grown used to being told when to wake-up, when to sleep, what to eat, etc from their younger days on. However, even though jocks are not the easiest group to educate and organize, there is a talented tenth among the pro players who have figured out on their own what the fiscal game is and have the trust and ability to lead their fellow athletes to a new relationship with the team owners. The team owners broke the union in the mid 80s and created a vacuum of leadership which nature abhors. The talented tenth led by Gene Upshaw (and his followers such as the Bills Troy Vincent and Takeo Spikes who routinely used their offseason to take MBA classes at Harvard rather simply get all the girls they could eat in local bars) were smart and adult enough to hire their own Harvard educated lawyers who recommended to the players they threaten to decertify the NFLPA. Under the US system, the NFL was allowed to restrain the rights of individuals through activities like the NFL draft (which is almost like a Cuba in that forces other than the individual can simply tell you where you must live and who you must work for. When the NFLPA threatened to decertify itself, under US law and our commitment to the rights of the individual without the NFLPA or some other player driven union, the NFL team owners would have been forced to buy individual player talent in the free market. Without the Rozelle inspired socialist compact it would only be a matter of time until the rich would buy the best players and win individually as the whole would collapse a would of haves (the 1%) and the others (the 99%). The team owners ran kicking and screaming to sign the CBA rather than compete in the free market. The NFL arguably became partners with the team owners with the signing of the CBA in the 90s. Then when it came time to renew the CBA in the early 2000s Upshaw declared the new CBA would not only cover the total NFL receipts but in fact the NFLPA cut of the total receipts would need to start with a 6 (60.5% ended up being the final number). Arguably the players were not only partners but the majority partners in the new NFL. The owners (to some extent led by Ralph ironically) were simply forced to cave to this demand as it was made clear by the NFL successors to Rozelle like Tagliabue that the individual team owners would make more money from the TV networks with labor stability and partnership with the players than they would in system based on traditional American individual competition. The next step in this journey strikes me as potentially involving the bills ownership. Not only has a situation occurred where the NFLPA members do not affiliate with the teams until 21 or later, but also through the new CBA, the players are accumulating some serious capital. My sense is that the Jim Kelly led group might provide the new model for ownership in the NFL. The Bills are unusual in that you have a collection of HOF level players in Jimbo, Thurman, Bruce. and now Reed (you can even add perennial HoF finalist Tasker to that list) of well capitalized well respected players who have a long developed habit of teammate social contract operation. This group (and other capital holders they can attract)may set an example for progressing beyond the day when the team owners were simply large capital holders from their success at other businesses (construction in Ralph's case, dot.com in Snyder's case, inheritance in many cases though this has much less to do with any demonstrated business competence- though we see from Ralph's case that being great at one business does not assure even competence as a sports team owner). My sense (and hope actually) is that the transfer of the Bills from Ralph to the new owner will also mark the beginning of the transfer of the NFL from the old guard Halas/Wilson/Mara/Rooney/Marshall owner to the new system of former player ownership. I actually would prefer a league wide model of municipal Green Bay Packer type ownership, the player owner model strikes me as far superior to the captain of industry model which rules the day today and brings us Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones types. 2. I will spend less time on the second ownership trend which I see as it is more basded on the Donald Sterling NBA episode than an NFL thang as TSW is focused upon. However, though Sterling is an NBA guy, this same situation of dumb old racists being the team owners is central to the NFL as well documented and self-avowed racists like George Marshall who named his NFL franchise the Redskins (would you name your team the Chinks or the N-words because you were rich and stupid and should you be allowed to do so when it pisses off potential customers for your partners). At any rate, what appears to be happening due to the Clippers situation is that sources of capital such as Oprah Winfrey or even a collection of people of color who are rich and former NBA stars are now talking seriously about putting together capital collaboratives which can spend a billion $ to buy the Clippers. It strikes me as merely a matter of time until we see these collaboratives turn their attention to spending that billion to buy an NFL team like the Bills rather than buy an NBA product like the Clippers. Its a new day and I will not be surprised to begin seeing minority and former player owners of NFL teams like the Bills. In fact, since my understanding of the law is that much like the Rush Limbaugh case the NFLPA has an effective veto on NFL ownership groups, if Kelly and his former teammates put together a group then we will suddenly find that other competiting ownership efforts like Donald Trump suddenly find themselves judged by the NFL as ineligible applicants to bid for the team against a former player group led by Kelly. We are all socialists now because there is more money to be made that way.

Actually it varies, some teachers get more than they deserve, but others contribute far more to some individual students and/or society as a whole. While this statement may seem obvious to most, its actual important in that its obviousness means that your generalization is obviously incorrect as a basis for crafting a solution.

They are the same thing in this case. If the NBA team owners want to successfully do business hear then reality simply demands they punish Sterling for his idiocy. Money talks and everything else walks in this case. It used to be that it did not impact one's ability to make big bucks even if you had racist thought or took even somewhat overt racist actions. Society has progressed and one can no longer take racist acts and make entertainment money. I think society is better off (and more fair) than it used to be. Don't you agree.