Ballsy

In hindsight, it appears it was a "meh" investment. Purchasing the NASDAQ 100 (QQQ) on the date he bought the Bills with 1.4 Billion would have resulted in a current market value of 7.3 Billion. He would have been well diversified, wouldn't have had to do any work (lobbying for stadium, running a team, takes shots from the press and/fans) and his investment would be worth an extra 1.5B with a highly liquid asset (QQQ). He would have had all his Sundays free to enjoy his yacht. Uh, 300% is basically what everyone who invested in the S&P500 did get over last 11 years (290%). Again, zero effort. Just buy it and forget it. Don't need to be a billionaire NFL owner to get 300% over 11 years.... Now, the Bills have kicked off income, but Terry is also spending a lot of cash on the stadium....

Sure. But 101mph (41 over the limit) 12 days after getting caught doing 91mph? The first one I can chalk up to a youthful indescretion. The second? IMO, that just an entitled brat.

If by handled himself exceptionally you exclude the ridiculous violations of Ohio traffic laws. June 5, ticketed at 91 in a 65mph zone, June 17, ticketed at 101 in a 60mph zone. That puts me firmly in the "he's the ultimate privileged nepo baby" camp. I suspect he is smart enough to understand that much of the world now views him as an entitled nepo baby and is rooting for his comeuppance. He appears now to be saying and doing the right things (in the last 5 weeks since he stopped speeding). I don't know if he is trying to change his character and become an upstanding citizen or he is just trying not to get caught (by the cops or on camera) as coming across as a the entitled brat he has been for the last 5 years.

That's 12M before taxes. The $6M after tax is a lot of money, but most folks wouldn't call that generational wealth. Sure if well managed it might turn into generational wealth, but so can $1M. If you invested $1M in the Nasdaq 100 index 30 years ago, it'd be worth over $15M today.... No one is asking him to take a discount to please the fans. I think these are his options: 1. Play out the reminder of the existing contract (he gets $5M this year). If he has another great season, his worse case scenario is the franchise tag and a one year contract. The franchise tag one year contract for running backs next year is probably $14M-$16M. $20Mish over two years, but the big downside is year-to-year guarantees. If he has a down year or misses time due to injury, he risks 3/4 of that $20M. 2. Accept the Bills offer, which he clearly feels is less than he is worth. I'll assume the Bills have offered him at least $10M/year for 4 years with 3 years guaranteed, but we have no information on their offer. It's probably at least $30M guaranteed. This greatly reduces his financial exposure and the downside risk of bad season or a major injury. 3. Try to get more money. He can agitate (Hold out, hold in, request trade, etc). If this becomes annoying enough (or a big enough distraction), the Bills might do something to get him more money (increase their offer, trade him, promise not to franchise him next year, etc). Since he has nothing to lose because he can always choose #1, or #2, why not try #3? Hold in seems to fit all his goals in ensuring he does not get injured during camp and possibly getting him more money, but he doesn't really have a lot of choices once the season starts. If the Bills don't change their offer and don't trade him, once the season starts he has to play a lot of football for the Bills if he wants to get paid in the future.

What does that have to do with "high" or "low" tax states? The "high" tax states have locked their QBs (Lions, Bengals, Bills, 49ers....). NFL players pay state income tax where the games are played. The Dolphins are guaranteed at least 3 games every year (all division away games) in "high" tax states. NFL franchises are disproportionately located in higher tax states. States with high state income taxes have historically had larger populations (although that is changing a bit). There are only 8 states with no state income tax, three of which don't have NFL teams - New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Wyoming. So in addition to playing those 3 divisional games, the Dolphins often end up playing at least half of their games in higher taxed locales. A quick look at the Dolphin's salary numbers and I'd estimate their per-game payroll is about $10M. That means the Dolphins players (in aggregate) probably pay over $1M in income tax to NYS every time they play the Bills and Jets.

The generational wealth thing is thrown around a lot in here. Are you saying that 10M/year for 4 years is not generational wealth? Frankly, if he signed for $10M/year with $30M guaranteed that is probably around $15 million in his pocket after taxes and agent's cut..... For most people, that's generational wealth and I don't think an extra $2-3 million (which will be $1M - 1.5M after taxes) will make it "generational" wealth if it wasn't already. It probably won't matter anyway because a great many of the guys that are focused on getting the "biggest" contract values end up broke anyway. It's just as easy to piss away generational wealth as it is a regular working stiff paycheck.

Every player in the NFL does not get a pair of Super Bowl tickets. Every player in the NFL has the right to buy Super Bowl tickets at face value. Players on participating teams get complimentary tickets.

This offense can move the ball and score on anyone on the planet much of the time. Fixed that for you. We all remember the last drive in AFC champshionship game where they could not move the ball and score and they definitely wanted to.

Why would you be surprised? When you buy a PSL you are essentially buying the exclusive rights to purchase the season tickets for those seats. Why would anyone spend between $500 - and $50K for a PSL if the team could decide in year 2 to NOT allow them to buy the tickets and instead the team could choose to sell them to someone else? For all the bitching about PSLs around here, they do guarantee the season ticket holder the exclusive right to renew. The team can't refuse to renew your seats for anything that isn't in the PSL contract. Now there may be a clause about bad behavior or other things, but apparently not for resell: Unlimited Resale. Now, the Bills might send out threatening letters, but that is just saber rattling.... Once the PSL contract is executed, the team cannot refuse to renew your tickets even if you resell every ticket for 30 years.

Sending threatening letters to season ticket holders about reselling tickets is not the same as preventing someone who paid a PSL from exercising their right to buy them. This is just saber rattling by the teams for the (valid) reasons you suggested - retaining home field advantage, etc. I think for teams where the season ticket holder bought a PSL, this is all bluster on the part of the team. I would need to see some proof with actual season ticket holders names to believe they are yanking tickets from someone who bought a PSL and resold tickets.

How can you get axed for selling tickets if you bought a PSL? The whole point of the PSL is that you have paid for the right to buy season tickets and no one else can buy season tickets for that seat. There is nothing in the contract that says you can't resell them. You can legally resell every single ticket and there's nothing the Bills can do about it once you bought the PSL. Purchasing the PSL guarantees you the right to buy those tickets. That being said, if you stop buying those season tickets, you forfeit that right in the future.

Why do you need to field a team on both sides of the ball? All it takes is one bold (crazy?) GM to never take offensive snaps. Imagine sinking 100% of your salary cap into defensive players and special teams. No quarterback, no offensive lineman. Every time your team gets the ball (on kick or turnover) you try to return for touchdown. If you don't return for a touchdown, on first down, you either attempt a field goal, or punt back to the other team. Never play offense. The typical NFL team takes 63 offensive snaps. Since your team will take zero offensive snaps, your opponents will have to take 125+ snaps. Imagine how tired their OL will get while you platoon the top 40 defensive players in the league against them. Imagine how frustrated your opponent's defense will be as they will never take the field the entire game. You could effectively take about 50% of your opponents salary cap out of the game. You'd have to buy the best kickers, punters and punt returners, and defensive players in the league, but I think no one would want to play you. This would only work in the NFL with the a salary cap.

By that definition, you could say buying tickets to the movies is an investment, or shopping for clothes is an investment. I know that my wife likes to call her shoe purchases an investment, but that is only to make her feel better. An investment is an asset or property acquired to generate income or gain appreciation. Concert tickets, clothing, and PSLs are generally not investments. Now, if you are buying PSLs to take clients to games and the clients are generating income, maybe, but if it's just for your enjoyment, probably not an investment.

I was keeping it to football, but, yes, I agree that Kelly is better at a lot of things than Josh - surviving cancer, judging wet t-shirt contests in Daytona, etc. The OP to which I replied made a statement which I believed was factually inaccurate: something along of lines, "there is not one thing that Kelly is better at than Josh in football." I found one think Kelly did better in football - getting to the Superbowl. I was not saying Kelly was more fortunate, or that Kelly was solely responsible for getting the Bills to the Superbowl. I'm just saying he was better than Josh at getting to Superbowls. That is indisputable. I made no assertions as to the reason why he got to Superbowls. Look, to be the QB of ANY team that makes the Superbowl, luck or fortune is a component. Luck has played a part for Mahomes, Brady, etc. So far, luck hasn't been kind to Josh in terms of advancing to the Superbowl. Coaching, defense, injuries, refs, quarterback ability as well as a myriad of other factors all play a role in advancing a team to the Superbowl. It's not just the Quarterback. We've had 59 Superbowls and I'll bet less than 70 total quarterbacks have started in the game (as many have started in multiple SBs). Josh isn't one of them. Does this mean Josh is a worse QB than Trent Dilfer or Tony Eason? No. But, like it or not, Josh will be judged on his lack of Superbowl appearances and Superbowl wins. Charles Barkely, Allen Iverson, Barry Bonds never won rings, but they all at least made it to the finals. Josh has yet to do that.

Again, not saying Kelley is better than Allen. I was just pointing out that the poster that said “there is not one thing that Kelly is better than Josh at” was wrong. I disagree. Kelly is currently better than Josh at getting to the superbowl. I never said it was because of Kelly the team got there. I never said that crappy quarterbacks who end up in the Super Bowl because they were blessed to be on great teams are great QBs. I was also not saying Kelly’s leadership, ability, personality, etc was the reason the team got to the Super Bowl. In fact, I never said Kelly was the reason the team made all those superbowls, or that that without Kelly, the wouldn’t have made any of them. I just pointed out a factual inaccuracy. As of today, factually, Kelly is/was better at getting to Superbowls than Josh. I’m also not saying it’s Josh’s fault or lack of leadership or ability that has prevented the team from getting to the Superbowl. Whether Kelly caused his team to make superbowls, or Josh prevented his team from making them is, in fact, unknowable.