ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) No team is owned by a corporation. Here's the link I already provided to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws in connection with fact #2 in my OP - - see the text of "1996 Resolution FC-6" (starting at page 169/292): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf If no team is owned by a corporation, how does the following text from "1996 Resolution FC-6" make any sense at all (the letters FC appear in the title of the resolution because it was an NFL Finance Committee resolution)? "Further Resoved, that if an NFL club is owned by a privately held corporation that has multiple classses of stock, one of which possesses full voting power and the others of which possess voting power only to the extent required by applicable corporate law, the principal and/or controlling owner shall only be required to have a 30% equity interest in the corporation if such principal and/or controlling owner owns all of the voting stock of the corporation and is not subject to contractual or other restrictions on his ability to vote such stock;" Buffalo Bills, Inc. (a New York corporation) owns the Buffalo Bills franchise (i.e., the team), and Ralph Wilson is the controlling owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. Edited May 16, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) No OP, none of things you cite even remotely suggests such a deal was proposed between RW and "toronto businessmen." What you're doing is called rambling, not providing evidence. Your leaps of logic could span the Grand Canyon. Your "dig down" theory sounds like something you read on a Argo message board. Toronto has no place to put an NFL team, period. Until there are concrete plans to construct a stadium that would meet NFL capacity requirements, there is zero chance the NFL would award them a franchise. 1. How did it become "my" dig down theory? My OP stated, with respect to the Toronto councilman who talked about "diggiing down:" "there are valid reasons to doubt his credibility" "I don't know how plausible "digging down" is" 2. What's to prevent the Toronto group from buying the franchise and continuing to operate it in Buffalo until they can get a better facility in Toronto? If they can never get a satisfactory stadium built in Toronto they keep the team in Buffalo - - but it would probably be easier for them to get stadium commitments from the local Toronto area elected officials if they already had control of a franchise. 3. I agree that the Toronto group would need to get approval from the existing NFL owners to buy the Bills, but they don't need that approval today in order to get the kind of option or right-of-first-refusal I'm talking about. IF such a deal was already made by Ralph, the Toronto group could also simply walk away and not exercise their rights if, upon Ralph's future death, they still don't have a stadium that meets NFL requirements. Edited May 17, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Ralph Wilson could not arbitrary enter into that commitment based on not knowing the outcome. This would be considered invalid simply because there is no clear course for this to occur without a owner being verified & clean of issues. To put it in the context of a situation that more people are familiar with - - you can sign a perfectly binding contract to buy a house conditioned upon (1) you being able to qualify for a mortgage that you have not yet even applied for, and (2) the house passing an inspection that hasn't been performed yet. If the buyer qualifies for the mortgage and the house passes inspection the deal goes through, money changes hands, and the buyer gets the keys. If the buyer can't get approved for the loan, or the inspection shows that the house is about to fall down, the deal doesn't go through, and the buyer never has to fork over the purchase price. The option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that the NFL might not approve the sale, just like the contract to buy a house can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that a future inspection reveals that it is about to fall down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 to answer your question, Did Ralph Already Grant Toronto An Option to Buy: it's highly unlikely, vastly improbable. i've spoken to enough people on both sides of the border to make this statement. entering a five-year agreement with Rogers and entering a sale agreement to purchase the team are two different animals altogether. it's not out of the question the Bills will relocate to Toronto. that said, it won't be the result of any side deal already having been made. -- first, there is no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise. Phil Lind has even acknowledged that point. -- second, if there was a deal, why is there continued talk of attempts to lure other franchises to Toronto. that talk was prevelant when the Bills In Toronto series was first announced, and remains the case now. -- third, lack of a game-ready stadium, requirement of NFL approval, political ramifications on both sides of the border all stand as significant obstacles for a deal to become reality. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 To put it in the context of a situation that more people are familiar with - - you can sign a perfectly binding contract to buy a house conditioned upon (1) you being able to qualify for a mortgage that you have not yet even applied for, and (2) the house passing an inspection that hasn't been performed yet. If the buyer qualifies for the mortgage and the house passes inspection the deal goes through, money changes hands, and the buyer gets the keys. If the buyer can't get approved for the loan, or the inspection shows that the house is about to fall down, the deal doesn't go through, and the buyer never has to fork over the purchase price. The option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that the NFL might not approve the sale, just like the contract to buy a house can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that a future inspection reveals that it is about to fall down. You can bring a co-signer on to over-ride this, whether it be spouse or family for income purposes in FL. It's called a financing contigency & can be waived by the buyer(s) at their own risk that puts their deposit in peril. Anotherwards, the buyer(s) deposit(s) goes hard (Seller's one way or the other / close or not). An option with a common "contingency", like FCC approval for an entertainment deal is possible because both sides have previously approved regulations that they follow. In the instance where one side is obligated & one side is an unknown, you have no clear course for business, therefore the "Toronto" team has no previously approved regulatory course they have followed / nor a common structure with the original entity. Bottom line is, you nor many on here understand contract law or regulatory approvals. Ralph couldn't obligate any part of his NFL team without approval from the majority of the owners, so that kills it right off the start without going into the clear course problems (which couldn't be enforced by a court). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Here's the link I already provided to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws in connection with fact #2 in my OP - - see the text of "1996 Resolution FC-6" (starting at page 169/292): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf If no team is owned by a corporation, how does the following text from "1996 Resolution FC-6" make any sense at all (the letters FC appear in the title of the resolution because it was an NFL Finance Committee resolution)? "Further Resoved, that if an NFL club is owned by a privately held corporation that has multiple classses of stock, one of which possesses full voting power and the others of which possess voting power only to the extent required by applicable corporate law, the principal and/or controlling owner shall only be required to have a 30% equity interest in the corporation if such principal and/or controlling owner owns all of the voting stock of the corporation and is not subject to contractual or other restrictions on his ability to vote such stock;" Buffalo Bills, Inc. (a New York corporation) owns the Buffalo Bills franchise (i.e., the team), and Ralph Wilson is the controlling owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. This reiterates the current ownership rules of the NFL. An individual must own 30% (or 10% if his family owns 20%) of a team. Of course that team can incorporate and have many other fractional owners. An existing corporation cannot be a plurality "owner" of an NFL team. An NFL team itself can be a corporation. You have it backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AthensThunder Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 What on earth would Ralph's motivation be in this weird suggestion??? What continually gets left out of these strange suggestions is that Ralph could have made hundreds of millions more had he moved this team years ago. He may have hired the wrong people to coach and manage this team,but he has always maintained Buffalo Bills in Buffalo. You would have to be most ignorant to not see that simple fact.It is also very understandable to know that Ralph enjoys owning the Buffalo Bills.It is a personal pride for him which is why he hasn't sold it already.Why would he as he doesn't need the money? So I have no understanding of why anyone would suggest we are going to lose The Bills to Toranto. Moving a few games there is on the other hand a very sound business transaction on several important levels none of which involve moving the team there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 to answer your question, Did Ralph Already Grant Toronto An Option to Buy: it's highly unlikely, vastly improbable. i've spoken to enough people on both sides of the border to make this statement. entering a five-year agreement with Rogers and entering a sale agreement to purchase the team are two different animals altogether. it's not out of the question the Bills will relocate to Toronto. that said, it won't be the result of any side deal already having been made. -- first, there is no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise. Phil Lind has even acknowledged that point. -- second, if there was a deal, why is there continued talk of attempts to lure other franchises to Toronto. that talk was prevelant when the Bills In Toronto series was first announced, and remains the case now. -- third, lack of a game-ready stadium, requirement of NFL approval, political ramifications on both sides of the border all stand as significant obstacles for a deal to become reality. jw If the Bills were relocating to Toronto, why in the heck would they come out with brand new uniforms that have a BUFFALO on the helmet? Think people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 If the Bills were relocating to Toronto, why in the heck would they come out with brand new uniforms that have a BUFFALO Bison on the helmet? Think people. Fixed it. New team will be the Toronto Bison. Doubt it? Is this fate tipping its hand? Bison Steve Christie signed by a Toronto team The Toronto Marlies, the AHL (American Hockey League) affiliate of the Toronto Maple Leafs, announced they have signed Manitoba Bisons men’s hockey starting goaltender Steve Christie to an amateur tryout contract on Tuesday, February 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Unless he borrowed the equity out of the Bills by using the team as collateral. PTR Shouldn't he have traded in the Taurus then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 to answer your question, Did Ralph Already Grant Toronto An Option to Buy: it's highly unlikely, vastly improbable. i've spoken to enough people on both sides of the border to make this statement. entering a five-year agreement with Rogers and entering a sale agreement to purchase the team are two different animals altogether. it's not out of the question the Bills will relocate to Toronto. that said, it won't be the result of any side deal already having been made. -- first, there is no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise. Phil Lind has even acknowledged that point. -- second, if there was a deal, why is there continued talk of attempts to lure other franchises to Toronto. that talk was prevelant when the Bills In Toronto series was first announced, and remains the case now. -- third, lack of a game-ready stadium, requirement of NFL approval, political ramifications on both sides of the border all stand as significant obstacles for a deal to become reality. jw Did Phil Lind say why there is "no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise?" This seems to imply that there is a temporary problem that might be overcome by someone at Rogers in the future. Was he any more specific? I am trying to dig up some more information about the businessmen on the Toronto side of the Bills In Toronto Series deal, and any further detail you could provide about Phil Lind's comments would be helpful if you have time. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) What on earth would Ralph's motivation be in this weird suggestion??? 1. $78 million dollars to spend on trying to get the Bills to the Super Bowl during his lifetime, after which he has not made any public promises that the Bills will remain in Buffalo anyway. 2. Toronto businessman Larry Tanenbaum doesn't think a right-of-first-refusal to buy a sports franchise is "weird." He already has one to buy a big chunk of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and it's expected that it will soon either (a) make him the primary owner of the Maple Leafs (he already owns about 20% through one of his companies), or (b) make him a richer man than he already is. http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2011/03/14/17615326.html "When Steve Stavro was controlling the show at the time of the Raptors-Leafs merger, Larry Tanenbaum waited and when the time was right, took control of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment. Now the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is exploring the idea of selling its controlling 66% with a price tag of $1.3 billion or more. Who is it going to be? Rogers? CTVglobemedia? Shaw? Jim Balsillie? "It could be any of them but none of it is going to happen with out Larry's approval because he not only has first right of refusal but, like he does with everything, he's been planning for this inevitability for years," said a source close to the story. Don't forget his main guy on the board is Dale Lastman and it was Dale with then-Sun Media president Paul Godfrey who put the original merger deal together on the sixth floor of the Sun building in 1998." ============================== P.S. Dale Lastman, Paul Godfrey and Larry Tanenbaum were all involved in structuring the Bills In Toronto Series deal. http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/10/larry-tanenbaum-and-ted-rogers.html Edited May 18, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Did Phil Lind say why there is "no one at Rogers currently in a position to purchase an NFL franchise?" This seems to imply that there is a temporary problem that might be overcome by someone at Rogers in the future. Was he any more specific? I am trying to dig up some more information about the businessmen on the Toronto side of the Bills In Toronto Series deal, and any further detail you could provide about Phil Lind's comments would be helpful if you have time. Thanks. i am simply noting that your initial premise -- the granting of an option to buy -- as being questionable at best. sure, there could be someone in the future. the future, however, is unknown. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGB Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 If the Bills were relocating to Toronto, why in the heck would they come out with brand new uniforms that have a BUFFALO on the helmet? Think people. This is surely proof that the Bills will not be locating. that is unless of course they become the Batavia Bison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 i am simply noting that your initial premise -- the granting of an option to buy -- as being questionable at best. sure, there could be someone in the future. the future, however, is unknown. jw Thanks. I will assume this means that either (1) Phil Lind was not specific about why "no one at Rogers is currently in position to buy an NFL franchise," or (2) Phil Lind told you something off-the-record that you cannot ethically repeat. For my present purposes it doesn't matter which one it was. I am thinking about the 3 reasons you gave in your first post for why you believe my suggestion is "highly unlikely" and "vastly improbable." I want to check a few more facts before I respond to the three points you made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Thanks. I will assume this means that either (1) Phil Lind was not specific about why "no one at Rogers is currently in position to buy an NFL franchise," or (2) Phil Lind told you something off-the-record that you cannot ethically repeat. For my present purposes it doesn't matter which one it was. I am thinking about the 3 reasons you gave in your first post for why you believe my suggestion is "highly unlikely" and "vastly improbable." I want to check a few more facts before I respond to the three points you made there. it wasn't off the record. i just can't remember if i reported it. and as this is a public forum, i'd prefer keeping some information to myself. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 it wasn't off the record. i just can't remember if i reported it. and as this is a public forum, i'd prefer keeping some information to myself. jw Sounds fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 it wasn't off the record. i just can't remember if i reported it. and as this is a public forum, i'd prefer keeping some information to myself. jw Do you think Larry Tanenbaum has the money to have a controlling interest in an NFL franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Do you think Larry Tanenbaum has the money to have a controlling interest in an NFL franchise? unless he's won the lottery (twice, maybe). jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 unless he's won the lottery (twice, maybe). jw Humor aside, let's talk about it. Serious question - - how much money do you think it takes to have a controlling interest in an NFL franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts