TSNBDSC Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Stayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Alright guys enough with the stupid "IN" already. I can't even tell you how annoying/played out it is to those of us who don't find it as amusing as some of you apparently do. The poor guy put together a long, thought-out post based on two new links. Please stop. EDIT: Ok maybe the links are old but who cares? It's like you're in third grade and you're tattling on another student. Just move on to another thread if you're not interested. EDIT 2: OK the post is not very good, is grammatically abhorrent and reads like a haiku but all that being said, I still hate the "IN's." It's the same way I felt about people still Tebowing well after it had run its course and acting like they were the first ones to do it. It's over for "IN." So you're saying "IN" is out, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 what you are worth and what you have in cash liquid assets are not the same thing....Pegula with a shot across the bow at 1.3................ response "We're out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's in My Blood Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Alright guys enough with the stupid "IN" already. I can't even tell you how annoying/played out it is to those of us who don't find it as amusing as some of you apparently do. The poor guy put together a long, thought-out post based on two new links. Please stop. EDIT: Ok maybe the links are old but who cares? It's like you're in third grade and you're tattling on another student. Just move on to another thread if you're not interested. EDIT 2: OK the post is not very good, is grammatically abhorrent and reads like a haiku but all that being said, I still hate the "IN's." It's the same way I felt about people still Tebowing well after it had run its course and acting like they were the first ones to do it. It's over for "IN." ^^^This X a million. It's more annoying than multiple threads on the same topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffaloed in Pa Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I wont believe it, until the new owner is announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes IN is most definitely OUT. Would you accept "in there like swimwear?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Alright guys enough with the stupid "IN" already. I can't even tell you how annoying/played out it is to those of us who don't find it as amusing as some of you apparently do. The poor guy put together a long, thought-out post based on two new links. Please stop. EDIT: Ok maybe the links are old but who cares? It's like you're in third grade and you're tattling on another student. Just move on to another thread if you're not interested. EDIT 2: OK the post is not very good, is grammatically abhorrent and reads like a haiku but all that being said, I still hate the "IN's." It's the same way I felt about people still Tebowing well after it had run its course and acting like they were the first ones to do it. It's over for "IN." But "needs more cowbell." That was friggin' cool. Oh, and...present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 JBJ drops out and the Toronto group has the money to bid during the extended window. It's not over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 The problem is that this is all just the same information being regurgitated by different writers. It's not like these are all separate sources providing independent confirmation. They're basically just taking the information from Wawrow's article and rehashing it for themselves. Killjoy. ; ) But "needs more cowbell." That was friggin' cool. Oh, and...present. I was gonna lock the thread, but I like 'Present'. And yes, Cowbell was a riot! BTW, JK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 JBJ drops out and the Toronto group has the money to bid during the extended window. It's not over. Except that Tannenbaum can't be lead owner and Rogers needs his mommy to sign the checks. Not an ideal scenario for the NFL. They'd have to find a whole 'nuther lead owner. Trump? (I just shuddered.) Can't see him being approved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 The reality is that we just keep starting threads with no new information. This exact conversation is now taking place in 3 different spots. Is that all? It feels like so much more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanbe Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Why can't Tannenbaum be lead? My understanding is that you can't own a another team in the same market that has an NFL team. Hence, Jacobs can't own the Bills, because he owns the Bruins AND the NFL has the Patriots in the same market. Toronto doesn't have doesn't have an NFL team so they can still bid on the Bills. Edited August 2, 2014 by jeanbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Why can't Tannenbaum be lead? My understanding is that you can't own a another team in the same market that has an NFL team. Hence, Jacobs can't own the Bills, because he owns the Bruins AND the NFL has the Patriots in the same market. Toronto doesn't have doesn't have an NFL team so they can still bid on the Bills. Who says Jacobs couldn't do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Why can't Tannenbaum be lead? My understanding is that you can't own a another team in the same market that has an NFL team. Hence, Jacobs can't own the Bills, because he owns the Bruins AND the NFL has the Patriots in the same market. Toronto doesn't have doesn't have an NFL team so they can still bid on the Bills. That's the gray area that only the NFL knows. Toronto is in the bills market but they're not. It all depends on how the NFL wants to play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Why can't Tannenbaum be lead? My understanding is that you can't own a another team in the same market that has an NFL team. Hence, Jacobs can't own the Bills, because he owns the Bruins AND the NFL has the Patriots in the same market. Toronto doesn't have doesn't have an NFL team so they can still bid on the Bills. Because the only way that Bon Jovi wants in is to be the lead, or "controlling owner," so he has to put in at least 30% of the total price. Tanenbaum can put in way more cash, and be a majority owner, but he wouldn't be the face of the franchise or attend the meetings or vote or be part of committees, etc. The higher the price goes the less chance he can pony up 30%. Without Bon Jovi, the Toronto guys don't have an in with the NFL owners. He is the reason they may get an approval (in a different situation, they have no chance in this one, IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBackersChicago Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 It's really over for this Toronto Group Bonjovi does not have the money to move forward it's that simple. As someone who posts threads that are too long, I have to say, holy crap that was a long post to say what could have been said with just the tiny snippet of your original post. Appreciate the supporting info, but u must have said the above statement 3 times in ur post! We get it, no need to say it over and over again!! Btw, I agree that the news articles are suspicious, but often these guys just want to post stuff that sells and a hint that the Toronto group won't be allowed through sure will get a lot of reads. They could have gotten off the record quotes from trump and pegula's people and then just asked for an official response from Toronto group which would obviously be a no comment (this saying they contacted all 3 groups and only got info suggesting 2 were moving on). Total conjecture, but we ARE talking about it, which is the point of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Who says Jacobs couldn't do that? He can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 to the bon jovi group JBJ drops out and the Toronto group has the money to bid during the extended window. It's not over. its over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Alright guys enough with the stupid "IN" already. I can't even tell you how annoying/played out it is to those of us who don't find it as amusing as some of you apparently do. The poor guy put together a long, thought-out post based on two new links. Please stop. EDIT: Ok maybe the links are old but who cares? It's like you're in third grade and you're tattling on another student. Just move on to another thread if you're not interested. EDIT 2: OK the post is not very good, is grammatically abhorrent and reads like a haiku but all that being said, I still hate the "IN's." It's the same way I felt about people still Tebowing well after it had run its course and acting like they were the first ones to do it. It's over for "IN." So will the mods also be deleting stupid polls and inter poster circle jerk titled threads like "Beerball found a girlfriend?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Because the only way that Bon Jovi wants in is to be the lead, or "controlling owner," so he has to put in at least 30% of the total price. Tanenbaum can put in way more cash, and be a majority owner, but he wouldn't be the face of the franchise or attend the meetings or vote or be part of committees, etc. The higher the price goes the less chance he can pony up 30%. Without Bon Jovi, the Toronto guys don't have an in with the NFL owners. He is the reason they may get an approval (in a different situation, they have no chance in this one, IMO). Why Kelly, how unlike you to crusade! Mods, Mods... oh Mods! Lookie here! Wags finger at above post Common guys. Lighten up Francis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts