Delete This Account Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Rogers family: 7.4 billion Tanenbaum: 1 billion ---------------------------------- 8.4 billion TPegs: 3.9 billion at the highest estimate what's yer point? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Rogers family: 7.4 billion Tanenbaum: 1 billion ---------------------------------- 8.4 billion TPegs: 3.9 billion at the highest estimate Except the estimates have been proven to be off, and TPegs just sold land for about half that "highest estimate" -- land that he holds more of. Not to derail the thread, but how amazing is it that we have people who know the ins and outs of a very private trust and sale process, yet nobody can tell you how Kiko injured that knee? What was he doing to tear his ACL working out on his own?! I have it on good authority that this minor setback was part of the process of preparing this knee for 10,000 years of durability. Take heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Mexico City will never happen, between the drugs, mobs, immigration bs and corruption the shield won't venture there. I also don't see NYS putting up $500 million for a new stadium. They should after the gifts they gave the NYC teams but not enough upstate votes. Maybe we can buy a gently used stadium from the Redskins as that moron Snyder wants a new stadium already! They don't necessarily need to pony up the money...Pegula could build it himself and just get tax breaks, etc from the state over a period of years to make up the $ amount... what's yer point? jw Yes, exactly, Rogers FAMILY, not Rogers himself...its split 5-6 ways and has multiple family members and a few outside people on the trustee list that has to approve any large purchase...which isn't going to happen from what we've been hearing which is why he needed partners in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 He's back. In fact, Kryk says he was never out: John Kryk @JohnKryk 5m Jon #BonJovi still in Toronto group hoping to buy the Buffalo #Bills, sources say. Pessimism still abounds, though: http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bon-jovi-still-part-of-toronto-group-hoping-to-buy-buffalo-bills-sources-say/ … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 He's back. In fact, Kryk says he was never out: John Kryk @JohnKryk 5m Jon #BonJovi still in Toronto group hoping to buy the Buffalo #Bills, sources say. Pessimism still abounds, though: http://blogs.canoe.c...s-say/ … Thanks for the link. Shocking that the NY Post would be wrong about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 So, one week from today is the deadline for binding bids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 So, one week from today is the deadline for binding bids? That's right. Probably by next Thursday we will get some good info flying around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Wow. never thought I would be happy about JBJ still in the Toronto group. So nothing has really changed then from a month ago... CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) No one ever answered the previous question on non-relocation language in trust or not, so here's another question to ponder ---- "if the bidders are aware that they have to present plans to keep team in Buffalo, why doesn't the trust make that portion of the rules/guidelines public ?" It would certainly put the community of Bills fans at ease and obviously it wouldn't compromise the bidding process since it would be information that would have been shared. Edited September 2, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 No one ever answered the previous question on non-relocation language in trust or not, so here's another question to ponder ---- "if the bidders are aware that they have to present plans to keep team in Buffalo, why doesn't the trust make that portion of the rules/guidelines public ?" It would certainly put the community of Bills fans at ease and obviously it wouldn't compromise the bidding process since it would be information that would have been shared. My guess is that it would compromise the bidding process, because in the grand scheme it would keep the price of the team lower if it's publicly known that the trust doesn't want the team moved and that limits the number of interested buyers which doesn't help the sale price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 ^ But it's been widely reported that the bidders know they need to be prepared with a long term plan to keep team in Buffalo, if the bidders already know that, why not make it public ? I'll try to answer the two questions I posted, hopefully Bandit, Kirby or Kelly will chime in, since they are the most in the know. 1- I don't believe there is any specific language in the trust rules/guidelines, I think there is an informal understanding amongst the group of 4 that Ralph didn't want the team moved as part of this process. The lease itself provides a very restrictive short term window that ALL bidders must adhere to anyway, so, the trust is simply abiding by that and asking for a long term plan. 2- Why not make it public ? there is nothing to make public since it's informal. The only reason this matters is it speaks to whether Ralph created something that was iron clad, and I think the answer is, he supported the lease, which is iron clad in the short term and he put his family/friends on the voting trust, which is the long term. Anyone disagree ? know something I don't ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 No one ever answered the previous question on non-relocation language in trust or not, so here's another question to ponder ---- "if the bidders are aware that they have to present plans to keep team in Buffalo, why doesn't the trust make that portion of the rules/guidelines public ?" It would certainly put the community of Bills fans at ease and obviously it wouldn't compromise the bidding process since it would be information that would have been shared. I was on vacation most of the weekend. The answer really is quite simple IMO: Why would the trust make the terms of the sale knowledge to anyone that they do not have to oblige according to the terms/law? If, for example, the terms of the Trust contain a provision making paramount a commitment to the WNY area, but do not require disclosure to prospective bidders until a certain benchmark in the process, why say anything? Once the bidders sign the NDA, they cannot comment on the sale process, so they have no way of getting that information out there to the public or other bidders. Also, it's important to understand that there doesn't need to be a provision in the Trust requiring sale to a WNY-committed buyer. There are many ways to make this happen; it could be as simple as structuring the valuation of bids such that any bid over and above the team's value (as determined by the 3rd party evaluation) by a certain benchmark, which also includes a hard commitment to the WNY area, shall be considered a greater value than any bid that contains no such commitment. Now, none of that is really necessary, given that neither or the Marys are going to approve a sale to anyone that is any threat to move the team. The whole point that a few of us have been trying to make is this: there doesn't need to be any one specific phrase or statement that precludes sale to an owner intent on relocation. There are many ways to prevent it, and all signs (both public and private) point to something of that nature being included in the Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I was on vacation most of the weekend. The answer really is quite simple IMO: Why would the trust make the terms of the sale knowledge to anyone that they do not have to oblige according to the terms/law? If, for example, the terms of the Trust contain a provision making paramount a commitment to the WNY area, but do not require disclosure to prospective bidders until a certain benchmark in the process, why say anything? Once the bidders sign the NDA, they cannot comment on the sale process, so they have no way of getting that information out there to the public or other bidders. Also, it's important to understand that there doesn't need to be a provision in the Trust requiring sale to a WNY-committed buyer. There are many ways to make this happen; it could be as simple as structuring the valuation of bids such that any bid over and above the team's value (as determined by the 3rd party evaluation) by a certain benchmark, which also includes a hard commitment to the WNY area, shall be considered a greater value than any bid that contains no such commitment. Now, none of that is really necessary, given that neither or the Marys are going to approve a sale to anyone that is any threat to move the team. The whole point that a few of us have been trying to make is this: there doesn't need to be any one specific phrase or statement that precludes sale to an owner intent on relocation. There are many ways to prevent it, and all signs (both public and private) point to something of that nature being included in the Trust. Good post Bandit. TX to expand (but it isn't the strongest argument) I think that the Trust is trying to keep everyone around. Even if the Toronto group thinks that there is a 1% chance that they can buy them and move them they will hang in the process. So far it has worked as they are still around. I believe that Bandit has kind of touched on it though in that if bid "X" is comes in at "Y" it trumps other bids. It may even have names attached to it. I am not positive that is how it is structured but I know that they are committed to remaining in WNY. Sorry, that there isn't stronger reasoning but keeping the boogeyman in the process keeps the floor from bottoming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Good post Bandit. TX to expand (but it isn't the strongest argument) I think that the Trust is trying to keep everyone around. Even if the Toronto group thinks that there is a 1% chance that they can buy them and move them they will hang in the process. So far it has worked as they are still around. I believe that Bandit has kind of touched on it though in that if bid "X" is comes in at "Y" it trumps other bids. It may even have names attached to it. I am not positive that is how it is structured but I know that they are committed to remaining in WNY. Sorry, that there isn't stronger reasoning but keeping the boogeyman in the process keeps the floor from bottoming out. Got it, and understand each of your thought processes. I think the trust, like you said, is trying to maximize their leverage to get the bids as high as possible, while respecting the lease terms and Ralph's inherent wishes. Do you both think we can still get new owner approved by mid-October owner's meeting, even with the firm deadline being reported as Sept 9th ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Got it, and understand each of your thought processes. I think the trust, like you said, is trying to maximize their leverage to get the bids as high as possible, while respecting the lease terms and Ralph's inherent wishes. Do you both think we can still get new owner approved by mid-October owner's meeting, even with the firm deadline being reported as Sept 9th ? Yes and I do. It is still right on pace. Edited September 2, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Bills fans have seen so much losing for the last 14 years, so they now have a preconceived conditioned response for failure. We will worry until TP or TG own the team. Just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yes and I do. It is still right on pace. Even though Kryk seems doubtful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) I was on vacation most of the weekend. The answer really is quite simple IMO: Why would the trust make the terms of the sale knowledge to anyone that they do not have to oblige according to the terms/law? If, for example, the terms of the Trust contain a provision making paramount a commitment to the WNY area, but do not require disclosure to prospective bidders until a certain benchmark in the process, why say anything? Once the bidders sign the NDA, they cannot comment on the sale process, so they have no way of getting that information out there to the public or other bidders. Also, it's important to understand that there doesn't need to be a provision in the Trust requiring sale to a WNY-committed buyer. There are many ways to make this happen; it could be as simple as structuring the valuation of bids such that any bid over and above the team's value (as determined by the 3rd party evaluation) by a certain benchmark, which also includes a hard commitment to the WNY area, shall be considered a greater value than any bid that contains no such commitment. Now, none of that is really necessary, given that neither or the Marys are going to approve a sale to anyone that is any threat to move the team. The whole point that a few of us have been trying to make is this: there doesn't need to be any one specific phrase or statement that precludes sale to an owner intent on relocation. There are many ways to prevent it, and all signs (both public and private) point to something of that nature being included in the Trust. I think there were specific instructions from Ralph. I always look at The New Stadium Working Group. 2 days after Ralph's death the last thing the trust should be thinking about is how do we now build a stadium in Buffalo. But 2 days after Ralph's death 2 of 4 members of the trust are added to The New Stadium Working Group. A group working with the new owner to build a stadium in WNY. Edited September 2, 2014 by TheTruthHurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Even though Kryk seems doubtful? I haven't heard anything contrary to what I heard when the process started. I will check in again at some point this week but as of the other day it was right where they expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Got it, and understand each of your thought processes. I think the trust, like you said, is trying to maximize their leverage to get the bids as high as possible, while respecting the lease terms and Ralph's inherent wishes. Do you both think we can still get new owner approved by mid-October owner's meeting, even with the firm deadline being reported as Sept 9th ? I'll be very surprised if it doesn't go down at the October meetings. For all we know, the Trust has already communicated to the NFL who they're considering, which would allow them to start the vetting process (if it hasn't been done already). It's completely possible that the NFL has already done their due diligence on the Big Four and knows everything they need to know to conduct a vote, so it would just be an issue of dotting i's and crossing t's of the de facto sales transaction. I haven't heard anything contrary to what I heard when the process started. I will check in again at some point this week but as of the other day it was right where they expected. I bet you keep getting the same answer as me: "nothing has changed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts