Jerry Jabber Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It was? And we know this how? We have no real information that I know of. Everything we hear is hearsay. So outside of some outlandish statements perhaps, most of the rest need to probably be considered as equal. It's been reported numerous times from numerous sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ozanian seems out of touch and behind the most recent updates in this article. No mention is made of Golisano's bid, for one. For some reason this guy is doing a hatchet job on Morgan Stanley. He blames them for conditions that come from The Trust. And, he seems to hang on to the idea the Toronto group has a legitimate chance of buying the Bills. That ship sailed quite a while ago. That part I bolded is exactly what I have thought was going on in the first place. They realize no one is going to shell out big bucks for a limited market. Look for the NFL to pay the 400 million fine just to be able to move them The $400 million isn't a fine that gets paid should the Bills owner decide to break the lease. You should know that by now. Even the most clueless reporters have finally caught on to that. Have you noticed that option basically never gets mentioned anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 How is the $400 applied (or not?) I haven't been following Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Morgan Stanley has very little say in the whole thing IIRC. Count just let him babble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) It's been reported numerous times from numerous sources. Ahhh OK. Repeat it enough times and it becomes fact Edited August 21, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 How is the $400 applied (or not?) I haven't been following I'm not falling for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ahhh OK. Repeat it enough times and it becomes fact If you don't believe what's being reported then good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) I'm not falling for it. Seriously I haven't. But way back when I said I thought thered be ways to challenge it, and even if not then after tax it was something like $250 million, so not quite the iron clad deterrent others were taking comfort in. If it turns out to have been a smoke screen I'm not surprised Edited August 21, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) If you don't believe what's being reported then good for you. It's just me I guess, but in lieu of facts, I understand people who believe everything that is reported. And I also understand people who believe nothing of what is reported. But it's the pick and choose to believe some but not others that I don't understand. Like I said, just me. I'm sure it makes sense to you. Edited August 21, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 For those calling to loosen up on the NDA you will never see that. We have restrictive NDA's for $20k transactions. The NFL certainly won't be stepping in and having the books of a team more public. No chance!! The binding bids will be closer to $1B IMO. There was no incentive to go higher in the initial process. The goal was to just get to round 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Seriously I haven't. But way back when I said I thought thered be ways to challenge it, and even if not then after tax it was something like $250 million, so not quite the iron clad deterrent others were taking comfort in. If it turns out to have been a smoke screen I'm not surprised Basically, the Bills can't break the lease until the windows in 2019-2020. There is a penalty of $20 or so should they exercise the out. That's the ONLY out in the contract. Should the Bills try to leave early they would be attempting to break a contract. There is a negotiated minimum penalty both parties have agreed to, $400 million, should that attempt be made. It's not an out. They still would have to sue the county (or the county sue them). This would take a lot of time--years, perhaps. The contract would almost certainly be upheld in court. In the very unlikely event the court allows the team to move (and when would that decision come?) they can make the team pay any penalty they like---possibly more than the $400. So the $400 isn't a "pay it and move" thing, It's a pay it, go to court (in Erie County, I think), fight the contract---all knowing you are paying that $400 million if/when you lose in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's just me I guess, but in lieu of facts, I understand people who believe everything that is reported. And I also understand people who believe nothing of what is reported. But it's the pick and choose to believe some but not others that I don't understand. Like I said, just me. I'm sure it makes sense to you. I try and base it off of who has been reporting info the most accurately. John Wawrow has been a very reliable source, same with John Kryk. Tim Graham has been hit or miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Speaking of LA, wait till the $2B check for sale of clippers clears in sterling's account. I see him swooping in and taking this thing with a $2 billion all cash offer Joe- how many 6 packs have you had today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I try and base it off of who has been reporting info the most accurately. John Wawrow has been a very reliable source, same with John Kryk. Tim Graham has been hit or miss. That would seem to be the most logical way to pick and choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Count just let him babble Well is Morgan Stanley not just overseeing a multi million, possibly billion dollar transaction to make sure nothing important gets missed? I could be completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) For those calling to loosen up on the NDA you will never see that. We have restrictive NDA's for $20k transactions. The NFL certainly won't be stepping in and having the books of a team more public. No chance!! The binding bids will be closer to $1B IMO. There was no incentive to go higher in the initial process. The goal was to just get to round 2. Agreed about the NDA. All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the trust or the NFL and ask "would ______ (in this case, loosen or drop the NDA) benefit me". In this case, the answer is clearly no. I also agree with your $1B assessment. There is no incentive I can think of for Pegula or anyone else to go higher. Edited August 21, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I think this is going to be a long, drawn out process. The trust may want a quick sale, but with this kind of price tag, there are going to be a lot of people involved. It would be nice to get this issue settled so that we can all move on, but this could drag into next year. I hope not, anyway............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I think this is going to be a long, drawn out process. The trust may want a quick sale, but with this kind of price tag, there are going to be a lot of people involved. It would be nice to get this issue settled so that we can all move on, but this could drag into next year. I hope not, anyway............... Will not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It is because of the $2B price tag for the Clippers. If this fiasco had not occurred the Bills situation would get much less scrutiny. Anybody who compare the Clippers' situation to the Bills' is a moron. First of all, LA is the second largest market in the United States while Buffalo's is in the 50s. Second of all, NBA teams can make local TV deals. The Lakers have a $200 million per year deal right now. NFL teams can't do that. So there's your difference in sales price. Never mind the fact that Ballmer seriously overpaid for the team. you owe tom a $1 Copyright infringement is not taken lightly He's copyrighted "your an idiot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 non binding bids - basically saying who is serious? The final price will be over a billion dollars withe Pegula taking home the prize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts