HalftimeAdjustment

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 If the Bills had made Vick the face of the franchise I would have reduced or withdrawn my support.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.

Nickell's size was an issue there.

That last one was blatant face to face. League will fine. Earlier one was glancing.

Eli Manning. Just before the Giants got hot and won the Superbowl (first time), I declared something to the effect of "Lets face it, he sucks." Oops.

He's definitely getting to the Wall. Compare to any other player during his time here.

Time to accept it. The Bills are just not very good.

Can anyone say that arranging the QBs differently on the roster or signing a different re-tread would have resulted in any difference in the W-L record? Possibly the Cleveland game... maybe, maybe not.

Do we get an OT thread?

Will be a catch on replay but then holding.

Whatever happens... Thad is more accurate deep than EJ.

Too bad his presence lulled everyone else to sleep. "We can rest easy and put this in out punter's hands."

How about a weak looking 3-and-out instead? Time to see Moorman again.