Hplarrm Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 It struck me as an interesting thing whose motivation was not clear to me when the NFL owners agreed that a 75% vote of support would be needed to approve any deal. The Donald Sterling stupid and morally reprehensible comments now make the motivation a lot more clear (There likely are some differences in what motivates different BA owners in that some are likely morally offended by his Neanderthal views, while I would not be surprised if some feel he has a right to think what he wants, but this distinction matters little as both those mostly motivated by morality and those mostly motivated by generated profits want Sterling gone. He has apparently (he is innocent until proven guilty if this ever comes to court but right now the court of public opinion is virtually certain about this) made the desires of his fellow owners whether motivated by heart, profit, or both need him to be gone as quickly as possible. It is clear to me that between the issues of raw profits to his fellow owners and/or the moral/racial equity desires of the players (who like it or not the owners have agreed contractually to allow the players to take in a majority share of the total profits the NFL owners really retain an absolute veto over who ends up owning the Bills. Anyone who makes the claim that the Bills will and must be sold by Mr. Ralph's estate to the highest bidder are simply WRONG! My guess is that Sterling is going to be forced by his NBA partners (this move will not be as easy to do in the NBA as it is in other leagues like the NFL or MLB, but it will almost certainly be done) out of the league. The Clippers franchise (which ironically I believe used to be the Buffalo Braves) is valued by outside media to be around $900 million and I suspect this will be the sale price. Lets say he makes this deal and now sitting on near a billion he uses his other $ or gets other investors and makes the highest bid for a Bills team placed on the market by Mr. Ralph's estate. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that the other NFL owners would be forced merely because he is the highest bidder for Mr. Ralph's family's estate that he would get the team? No. The NFL owners would easily veto this because whether your interests are moral or fiscal it would be wrong to have this highest bidder as a partner. If you are such a speech advocate that you defend Sterling his right to be an idiot or do not think it applies to other sports leagues then remember Marge Schott and her collection of beloved Nazi paraphernalia. Dhe was gone. If you think the NFL is different then remember just a few years back when Rush Limbaugh was publicly a minority (talk about irony) partner in a group making a credible bid for an NFL team. Not only was Limbaugh vetoed by the NFLPA due to his comments about A-A QBs but he was vetoed not by the owner partners but by the player pseudo partners. My conclusion from this is that folks need to take more seriously the NFL veto on who the next owner is. My GUESS is that this means individuals like Donald Trump are very (and I mean VERY unlikely to be even part owner of the Bills. There are several reasons why he would be vetoed: 1. As an alleged candidate for Pres. Trump openly flirted with anti-Obama birtherism (never changing his tune without regard to outside objective contemporaneous announcements of his birth in Hawaii in the early 60s or the release of official certificate of live birth. My GUESS is NFLPA players which is majority A-A will likely object and succeed in getting a Limbaugh like result in blocking Trump involvement in an ownership group. 2. In addition to the NFLPA making it economically dumb to have Trump as a partner. his ownership and connections to gambling as part of his Atlantic City relationships may likely make his ownership involvement in the NFL a bad fiscal decision. From the universal weekly publication of betting lines to the billions spent on Super Bowl pools, having a professional gambler as a team owner raises conflict of interest problems I doubt a Trump bid survives. 3. The NFL owners are rich and have big egos. Trump has a big ego and a track record of going to court when egos clash. My GUESS the NFL owners veto any bid that includes Trump. i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 It struck me as an interesting thing whose motivation was not clear to me when the NFL owners agreed that a 75% vote of support would be needed to approve any deal. The Donald Sterling stupid and morally reprehensible comments now make the motivation a lot more clear (There likely are some differences in what motivates different BA owners in that some are likely morally offended by his Neanderthal views, while I would not be surprised if some feel he has a right to think what he wants, but this distinction matters little as both those mostly motivated by morality and those mostly motivated by generated profits want Sterling gone. He has apparently (he is innocent until proven guilty if this ever comes to court but right now the court of public opinion is virtually certain about this) made the desires of his fellow owners whether motivated by heart, profit, or both need him to be gone as quickly as possible. It is clear to me that between the issues of raw profits to his fellow owners and/or the moral/racial equity desires of the players (who like it or not the owners have agreed contractually to allow the players to take in a majority share of the total profits the NFL owners really retain an absolute veto over who ends up owning the Bills. Anyone who makes the claim that the Bills will and must be sold by Mr. Ralph's estate to the highest bidder are simply WRONG! My guess is that Sterling is going to be forced by his NBA partners (this move will not be as easy to do in the NBA as it is in other leagues like the NFL or MLB, but it will almost certainly be done) out of the league. The Clippers franchise (which ironically I believe used to be the Buffalo Braves) is valued by outside media to be around $900 million and I suspect this will be the sale price. Lets say he makes this deal and now sitting on near a billion he uses his other $ or gets other investors and makes the highest bid for a Bills team placed on the market by Mr. Ralph's estate. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that the other NFL owners would be forced merely because he is the highest bidder for Mr. Ralph's family's estate that he would get the team? No. The NFL owners would easily veto this because whether your interests are moral or fiscal it would be wrong to have this highest bidder as a partner. If you are such a speech advocate that you defend Sterling his right to be an idiot or do not think it applies to other sports leagues then remember Marge Schott and her collection of beloved Nazi paraphernalia. Dhe was gone. If you think the NFL is different then remember just a few years back when Rush Limbaugh was publicly a minority (talk about irony) partner in a group making a credible bid for an NFL team. Not only was Limbaugh vetoed by the NFLPA due to his comments about A-A QBs but he was vetoed not by the owner partners but by the player pseudo partners. My conclusion from this is that folks need to take more seriously the NFL veto on who the next owner is. My GUESS is that this means individuals like Donald Trump are very (and I mean VERY unlikely to be even part owner of the Bills. There are several reasons why he would be vetoed: 1. As an alleged candidate for Pres. Trump openly flirted with anti-Obama birtherism (never changing his tune without regard to outside objective contemporaneous announcements of his birth in Hawaii in the early 60s or the release of official certificate of live birth. My GUESS is NFLPA players which is majority A-A will likely object and succeed in getting a Limbaugh like result in blocking Trump involvement in an ownership group. 2. In addition to the NFLPA making it economically dumb to have Trump as a partner. his ownership and connections to gambling as part of his Atlantic City relationships may likely make his ownership involvement in the NFL a bad fiscal decision. From the universal weekly publication of betting lines to the billions spent on Super Bowl pools, having a professional gambler as a team owner raises conflict of interest problems I doubt a Trump bid survives. 3. The NFL owners are rich and have big egos. Trump has a big ego and a track record of going to court when egos clash. My GUESS the NFL owners veto any bid that includes Trump. i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 For the "too long, didn't read" crowd - i believe the cliff notes are: "after seeing Donald sterlings comments, I get why the nfl has a vetting/approval process for owners. Good to keep in mind with talks about trump and the bills" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is so bad. Marge Schott was not forced to sell her team by the MLB or other owners. She was suspended from running ot 3 times (over years) and when her contract to be controlling partner was up, she sold he controlling interest to someone else and remained a minority partner until she died. Trump is not "a professional gambler" and for the millionth time, he doesn't own any casinos, in part or in whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 For the "too long, didn't read" crowd - i believe the cliff notes are: "after seeing Donald sterlings comments, I get why the nfl has a vetting/approval process for owners. Good to keep in mind with talks about trump and the bills" It's not that it was too long, it was impossible to follow. This is so bad. Marge Schott was not forced to sell her team by the MLB or other owners. She was suspended from running ot 3 times (over years) and when her contract to be controlling partner was up, she sold he controlling interest to someone else and remained a minority partner until she died. Trump is not "a professional gambler" and for the millionth time, he doesn't own any casinos, in part or in whole. I think comparing Marge Schott is not the thing to do here. She made her comments roughly 25 years ago. Totally different era. Comments like that, while certainly frowned upon, we're not as big of a deal as they are today. Things like that were simply not thought of as harshly 25 years ago. Add to that the impact of social media where the league / players / figures can see directly the fans opinions on the matter in their voices, thousands of times over and over, ad neaseum basically. Previously it really only came from the media (who used to move on after a day or two, now they linger for weeks and months on certain stories.) Finally, what Marge said was not about 90% of her players like it is in this case. Quite simply, you have to be much smarter than that these days regardless of your "right" to feel how you want to feel and say what you want to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 My grassy knoll theory is that a 75% vote to move is pretty much a done deal. All of the other owners know that someday they may want to move and don't want someone to vote no because you voted no for them at one point. Just look at the NBA vote on moving the Seattle SuperSonics. Only one owner voted no, Mark Cuban. They may be a little different on ownership though. Has an ownership vote ever failed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 For the "too long, didn't read" crowd - i believe the cliff notes are: "after seeing Donald sterlings comments, I get why the nfl has a vetting/approval process for owners. Good to keep in mind with talks about trump and the bills" Actually, many thanks for the summary. I often use the Stadium Wall to think out loud through different issues which may become part of the usual dinner table conversational brawl s I have with my 2 brothers in law and other Bills fans we hang with. In addition to the key point you highlight. the part of this issue which intrigues me overall which I think overthinking about the Bills leads one to is the societal point that at its basics, the NFL is one of the best examples of socialist thinking going in American society. It certainly had a basis in business minded individuals like a George Halas who helped build the collective of individuals who pursued a mostly capitalist model of being sportsmen who also made money from their sport. However, under the guidance of brilliant minds like Pete Rozelle who led and prodded the NFL into more of a socialist or social contract approach (for example the NFL does not reward successful play with higher draft picks as a good capitalist would to encourage better individual performance, the NFL awards mediocre teams with higher draft picks in an effort to improve the entire NFL product. When the NFLPA forced the team owners into the CBA in the 90s by threatening to decertify, the players arguably became a partner with the team owners. Led by Gene Upshaw, when the CBA came up for renewal and he dictated to the owners that all revenues must be part of the salary cap and that the player cut needed to start with a 6 (the deal ended up being a 60.5% cut of the gross NFL revenues) the players arguably were the majority partners. My guesstimate thinking all this through and why it is relevant to my and yes your thinking as Bills fans is that looking at this in terms of simple raw economics I think the Bills will remain here in Buffalo. This is because I think those who calculate that there are better bigger markets for the individual owner in other places like LA, Toronto, Portland or whatever may be right about the individual owner, but they need to understand that a veto sits not with the individual owner but with the entire NFL as a social contract. The NFL is not simply selling to the Buffalo market or even a collection of local markets. The NFL market is the entire world. The real bigger $ for the NFL decision-makers who have a veto on who the Wilson estate sells to, their market is eyeballs in Mexico City, in Tokyo and in Stugartt. Sure if the Bills are sold to someone who moves them to LA, the individual owner gets 1/31st of the franchise fee and increased total revenue of LA over Buffalo. However, if the Bills stay in Buffalo, the NFL gets to sell a new franchise to new eyeballs in foreign countries for this municipality to join an entity with an original AFL/MFL team like Buffalo. In fact, if the Bills leave and we build up 7 years of stock footage of Bills fans and WNYers being in mourning because we lost our beloved team this is not the best sales story to present to new franchises in new countries. I do not know how the timezone and other issues will be dealt with and we will see. However. I am more certain from seeing how the Ralph death has gone down and the economic and moral stupidity of various owners and public figures that I am growing more certain the Bills will not move because their is greater certainty and bigger bucks for the NFL if the Bills stay where they are. In fact, by setting up various irrevocable trusts which own the Bills, having these trusts operate for the care and maintenance of Mrs. Wilson and her taking a seat with the NFL as the team owner, it would not shock me if the Bills are not even sold. Between the trusts and Mrs. Wilson taking over ownership (which she will administer through Brandon, Littman, et al.) there is no tax bit on the Bills and the Wilson family unless they sell the Bills. My current heretical GUESS is that the Bills will mot even be sold for the near future. It makes little economic sense for the Wilson family or the NFL to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is so bad. Marge Schott was not forced to sell her team by the MLB or other owners. She was suspended from running ot 3 times (over years) and when her contract to be controlling partner was up, she sold he controlling interest to someone else and remained a minority partner until she died. Trump is not "a professional gambler" and for the millionth time, he doesn't own any casinos, in part or in whole. What gets me is no matter how many times this is in print, many still fail to get this simple concept. He sold his interests it just has his name for marketing purposes. Hell the man said he would have his name removed if it caused any issues with the NFL. Whatever issues the owners had with him over the USFL is long gone. The only person who will have issue is Jerruh Jones and that is because Trump is way more popular and powerful. That is going to chap Jerruh wrong, but fk him. This team needs Trump to own it esp. from a marketing standpoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 What gets me is no matter how many times this is in print, many still fail to get this simple concept. He sold his interests it just has his name for marketing purposes. Hell the man said he would have his name removed if it caused any issues with the NFL. Whatever issues the owners had with him over the USFL is long gone. The only person who will have issue is Jerruh Jones and that is because Trump is way more popular and powerful. That is going to chap Jerruh wrong, but fk him. This team needs Trump to own it esp. from a marketing standpoint Some may like Trump. However, judging from the fairly widespread jokes and laughter at his expense in the modern media a lot think he is a joke as a personality as well. Its like a jury, the defense only needs one juror to block a verdict. The question would be whether Trump can avoid 25% of NFL owners looking to one of the other several it sounds like pools of $ to find an owner. A lot of folks bring their positives and also some big negative. Its hard for me to see how Trump does not bring: A. Serious opposition from owners with big egos saying no to sharing their bucks with another bigger ego who has shown a penchant for going to court. B. He has long associations with the gambling community dating back to days where he owned a casino (though his proponents seem to point out he long ago mismanaged his casino holdings so badly he lost them> Having a history of having gamblers feel like you owe them because you lost your and investors shirts does not speak well either. 3. One of his recent public outings was throwing fuel on the birther hypocrisy leading to Obama to go out of his way to publicly lampoon the Donald at a press dinner while his team was killing bin Laden. I have few doubts that minority players will delight in having the NFLPA throw a monkey wrench into any Trump plans the way they blocked Rush Limbaugh as a potential owner a few years ago. Like most of the rest of the world who knows who is gonna be the next owner, but I think it is a pretty great bet it ain't gonna be the Donald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 It struck me as an interesting thing You're boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I just hope you never have to change your screen name to nojrm or dlanodrm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts