HalftimeAdjustment

Or they can skip the lease buyout and pocket $300M over 15 years. I am not sure what type of income this can offset, capital gains tax rates would be 23.8% (+ state tax) whereas federal for someone at those levels is 39.6%. The vast majority of income for the ultra wealthy is likely to be capital gains related. I'm unclear on whether the state tax is NY state tax or state tax in the owner's state of residency, but it makes a big difference. Nevertheless, the writeoff is likely to be at least 23.8% and could be as high as ~48.5% (39.6% federal income tax + 8.97% NYS tax)... assuming this credit can be taken at the state level. Moral of the story: This writeoff is not a trivial consideration, and substantially mitigates the cost of the team over the 15 years.

I don't like the trade. We get a 4th next year - not a lot of value. If it becomes a 3rd I'd feel a little better. But not much. I don't see Mike Williams as a viable replacement, and in fact there's reason for concern that he may flame out in one way or another. In which case, we just lost one of our top receivers because we were "too crowded" at the position. Watkins may be great, but many rookie receivers take until year 3 to break out. I have to wonder if Stevie was looking to go back to SF for personal reasons. Anyhow, I don't think we are taking big steps forward this offseason so far.

They are censoring it to hide the raw sewage.

Don't forget that police sometimes overcharge on the arrest report. Will have to wait for court / DA to see what the final charges are.

If a free stadium in NYS is offered (in exchange for a long term lock in), the owner (whomever it is) will keep the team in NYS. Owners interested in moving the team would naturally be outbid by those who want to stay and take the incredible giveaway. However, I do not believe that the taxpayers will be THAT generous. If they are, it's the Buffalo Bills for the next 20 years for sure. Unfortunately the more likely scenario is that there will be a reasonable, but not outrageous, incentive package available in New York. Whether that incentive is enough to balance out the economic benefits of moving remains to be seen. A lot of residents would be likely to oppose a complete gift of $500M+ to the new Bills owner. Depending on the length of the lock-in period, I think you could see $20-30M/year ponied up by the government as an initial incentive, plus relatively modest tax breaks or other annual benefits on an ongoing basis... If it is more than that I will be surprised.

You don't need to make back $1 billion. You own an asset that is worth approximately $1 billion. If you want the money back you can probably cash it in. It's similar to buying real estate or even gold. In my opinion less risky than gold however. There is a chance that it will increase in value and a small chance it will decrease. There is virtually no chance of losing the $1 billion. Also the $1 billion is worthless anyhow unless you invest it or buy something. So whomever has $1 billion can own some other business, a bunch of buildings, or the Bills. The Bills may not be the highest performing investment but you don't have to be completely uncaring about money to select them. You may lose $30m/year in opportunity cost compared to a better investment, but you do become an NFL owner.

I'd take that over never winning. "Leave the trophy and get out."

^ This.

Let's bring him in for a tryout at TE. While we are at it we should also give tryouts to Tim Tebow and Mike Jasper. (Both at TE of course). Question, can Manuel play TE?

We couldn't cut him since with TBD as GM we traded him last year for a draft pick.

In my opinion it's going to take a sweetheart deal to keep the Bills. In my opinion, voters are not going to want it. However in NYS many of the politicians are insulated from voters so it could still happen. I no longer live in the area so I can't really have an opinion on the "right amount" of tax incentives.

I'm not going to get in the political mud... That should go to another board. I will say however that I would *prefer* a less controversial owner, but I'd take Trump if he leaves the team in Buffalo and I would not stop following the team even if he acts like an a** constantly... As long as most of that was non football related. However if someone considers him such a reprehensible racist then I respect their right to change teams. If the Bills had made Vick the face of the franchise I would have reduced or withdrawn my support. Everyone has their limits, I suppose.

A couple more thoughts on Trump. First of all, if you look into his background (for example on Wikipedia), he actually lost most of his stake in the casinos and they probably are not that profitable. Gambling in general is experiencing much more competition as multiple states legalize gambling. So I don't doubt he can easily get out of any gambling related involvement. According to what's out there, he gets a lot of his money from licensing his brand (ie "Trump") to real estate developments and other ventures. Nice work if you can get it; someone else does the development and takes most of the risk, and you get free cash for letting them use the name "Trump". So... any time he generates publicity, as long as it is not outrageously negative, he is going to end up increasing his brand value and therefore his future earnings potential. Ridiculous but there you have it. He's already gotten publicity out of this and of course he says he wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo because that portrays him, and the Trump brand, in the best possible light. Not only is that great for his ego, but let's face it... the more times the word "Trump" is said, posted, or written about, he's enhancing his brand. I might as well be working for him by writing this post! So from here... he can do a couple of things: 1) Just drop out of the process after other groups come to light. This is possible and he can easily back out at any point by saying they couldn't make the numbers work. He still wins since he just got free press. 2) Put in a lowball bid and then when someone else buys it, claim they paid too much and he is too smart for that. This is a mixed result, he doesn't take a credibility hit by not following through, but it makes him appear less wealthy and powerful. I don't know if this is likely. 3) Make a serious bid, but lose out intentionally or otherwise. This is a net positive result for Trump, he can easily use the "they paid too much" argument but he gets maximum publicity during the process. 4) Make a serious bid but get rejected by the NFL. This is a BAD scenario for Trump (ego and brand-wise) and back channels will be used to ensure that this will not happen. If the owners are not open to a Trump bid, either #1 or #2 will happen. 5) Make a winning bid. Can't be ruled out and gives him a lot of credibility as a rich guy which he craves. In this scenario, in my opinion, he keeps the bills here through the 7 year period regardless. If NYS etc give him good tax breaks he stays because it is easy, safe money ... otherwise he looks at Toronto, London, or selling to a group in one of those areas. There's nothing IO can see preventing a new owner from holding the team in Buffalo for the duration of the lease agreement, then selling to a non-local group near the end (as long as they do not "intend to relocate during the term of the agreement"). Holding onto the team for 7 years may bring Trump enough "side benefits" in terms of publicity and branding to make any "not profitable enough annually" issues go away.

A new owner would be smart to say they would strongly prefer to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but that long term it would depend on progress in the stadium working group. This allows them to negotiate on the amount of subsidies. We don't know how much the state and county are willing to kick in for a new stadium, but we know that number is not $0 (since they kicked in money for the improvements in the last lease). The higher that number is the better chance we have to keep the Bills. You may feel taxpayers should not pay, but objectively the more money put up by NYS the greater the chance the Bills stay. Since Trump already said he would keep them here I am guessing he is not really serious but just looking for good PR.

F5...

See this link: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf Section 3 (b) subsection (iv) ©... upon re-reading this, it appears that they can discuss relocation under 2 conditions... either during arbitration hearings to terminate the lease, or if the relocation would take effect after the end of the term. So they can discuss relocation with someone who wants to relocate them after 7 or 10 years.

The terms of the lease also appear to prevent the Bills from engaging in talks with groups trying to get them to play elsewhere, during the no-move period. That is interesting. As far as the 6-year no move period not helping Buffalo, it can also be viewed as a 6 year window for other teams to get a jump on moving into LA and closing off that route. Toronto is a bigger problem.

Here's my theory on the plan. The lock-in lease was effectively a gift to give us a shot at keeping the team. People are saying the sooner the team is sold, the better... Not necessarily. The team is not staying after 2019 regardless of ownership group, unless the stadium issue is resolved. Imagine if the team was sold tomorrow. The new ownership would either lack leverage (if perceived as committed to stay no matter what) OR they would be under constant suspicion of dragging on negotiations to eventually break the lease. What if, instead, the trust immediately tries to negotiate a "contingent" stadium deal. If the trust arranges a plan with county/state support to have a stadium in place, it will do 2 things: 1) it will be more attractive to potential owners who just do not want the headache of a move and 2) it will increase the in-place valuation of the team, reducing the financial case for moving. Oh and the trust could claim they increased the team's value, per their duty. It just requires that elected officials get creative and work on a deal knowing that it is not binding and won't be final but is still worth the effort. Main downside is the new owner could ask for a better dea. Unlikely this will work out but it could happen.

You realize they have to say that, in order to prove their competitive fire to potential employers, right?

For all of the people who say "No safety is worth $10M/year", do you believe that: A) No NFL franchise will actually pay Byrd $10M/year, so the Bills would be suckers to do so; OR B) Another NFL franchise will actually pay Byrd $10M/year, and that franchise has a less effective front office than the Buffalo Bills, and that franchise will fare worse long-term than Buffalo? I'm curious if people will state their positions now. Obviously if you believe Byrd IS worth $10M/year, there is no need to take a position on this question.

So it's pretty sad that if an additional playoff spot had been in effect every year from 2000 onward... we still wouldn't have made the playoffs. In 2004 we would have tied for the last spot but presumably lost the tiebreaker.

Well, the Giants owner ruled out Green Bay as a location... but that was the "only" place he ruled out. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000318433/article/new-york-giants-owner-rules-out-green-bay-super-bowl So, I guess we need a new stadium and mega hotel in Buffalo to land a Super Bowl in say 12-15 years. Indianapolis did a lot of hotel building in the run up to their SB hosting. If you don't think this is a "lure" that will be used to try for a new stadium in cold weather cities... I don't know what is.

Wonder if the silence has anything to do with this. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/05/report-coaches-wanted-incognito-to-toughen-up-martin/related/

I tried but failed to sort of show a sliding scale of badness. I should have put TO on the far right (below Haynesworth). He didn't hurt people but he was perceived as a big enough "jerk" to become toxic to most team through his statements and behavior. Not suggesting TO and OJ should be grouped.

This is true. Lawrence Phillips has Incognito beat. So does OJ Simpson. And Jovan Belcher... I could go on. However, Incognito may have the edge on, for example, Terell Owens or Albert Haynesworth.