Kirby Jackson Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I bet you keep getting the same answer as me: "nothing has changed" Pretty much, which is pretty reassuring. This process has unfolded as expected. The only thing that surprises me as that the Toronto group is still hanging in there. I guess that they are trying to prove to the NFL that they are not pretenders for the next time a team is available? If they end up as the "runner up" it looks a lot better than they pulled the plug at the 11th hour because they couldn't afford it as structured. Other than that this thing has gone as any of is could have hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks 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. The entire purpose of a trust as opposed to other methods is privacy. Why go out of your way to keep the sale of an asset private, then make information about it available for public consumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog 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 answered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) ^ In this thread ? I believe you posted that there is no additional provision in the trust, the lease is what is driving non-relocation, correct ? Edited September 2, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 ^ In this thread ? I believe you posted that there is no additional provision in the trust, the lease is what is driving non-relocation, correct ? We know the lease is driving the non-relocation. There is every reason to believe, by several actions as well as common sense, that there is a directive to the Trust to keep the team in Buffalo, too. Otherwise, Ralph would never ever ever have put his wife and niece in this position. There is also every incentive for the Trust, the NFL, and Morgan Stanley to get as much money as they possibly can while staying in Buffalo. So there is NO incentive whatsoever for them to disclose any official or unofficial directive. It's the same reasoning that made Ralph say or not say things about what would happen to the team following his death. This made some people, erroneously, conclude it was just going to the highest bidder. Anyone that had inside information, or just sat back and thought about it for a little while, knew that was not going to be the case. Ralph wanted the team to stay in Buffalo, AND, make as money as he could for his family with the team staying. Saying anything otherwise would have likely lessened the sale price to the local interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 We know the lease is driving the non-relocation. There is every reason to believe, by several actions as well as common sense, that there is a directive to the Trust to keep the team in Buffalo, too. Otherwise, Ralph would never ever ever have put his wife and niece in this position. There is also every incentive for the Trust, the NFL, and Morgan Stanley to get as much money as they possibly can while staying in Buffalo. So there is NO incentive whatsoever for them to disclose any official or unofficial directive. It's the same reasoning that made Ralph say or not say things about what would happen to the team following his death. This made some people, erroneously, conclude it was just going to the highest bidder. Anyone that had inside information, or just sat back and thought about it for a little while, knew that was not going to be the case. Ralph wanted the team to stay in Buffalo, AND, make as money as he could for his family with the team staying. Saying anything otherwise would have likely lessened the sale price to the local interests. Delicate balance between, the lease, the approval of NFL owners, Ralph's wishes and the almighty dollar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Thanks for the link. Shocking that the NY Post would be wrong about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Delicate balance between, the lease, the approval of NFL owners, Ralph's wishes and the almighty dollar You are free to look at it that way. I look at it just the opposite. I think it makes perfect sense. It gets all parties what they wanted. It is and never was an "either or" case of greed - "get most money" - or philanthropy - "donate the team to Buffalo." It was simply real life, two things happening concurrently, for good reasons. We've kept the team in Buffalo for 50 years, it should be 50 more. Lets get as much as we can while ensuring it. I don't think it's a delicate balance at all, and that is one of my very favorite expressions, which I think happens a lot and I use it all the time. The Bills wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. The trust's and Ralph's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. The NFL's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. Morgan Stanley's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping to the lease's, the Trust's and Ralph's directives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 You are free to look at it that way. I look at it just the opposite. I think it makes perfect sense. It gets all parties what they wanted. It is and never was an "either or" case of greed - "get most money" - or philanthropy - "donate the team to Buffalo." It was simply real life, two things happening concurrently, for good reasons. We've kept the team in Buffalo for 50 years, it should be 50 more. Lets get as much as we can while ensuring it. I don't think it's a delicate balance at all, and that is one of my very favorite exp<b></b>ressions, which I think happens a lot and I use it all the time. The Bills wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. The trust's and Ralph's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. The NFL's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping the team in Buffalo. Morgan Stanley's wants: Make the most money you can while keeping to the lease's, the Trust's and Ralph's directives. Still not sure why keeping the team in Buffalo, if it's a requirement, why it hasn't been made more public, obviously the bidders would all need to know that requirement. I guess, they wanted the process to be confidential and didn't see the need to pick and chose what information is made public and what is not, just keep it all private. I'd also be curious if the 4 member trust was aware of the consternation in the community and whether they ever felt the need to relieve that with a more public pronouncement. We haven't heard anything public from any of the four on the sale process. Again, they don't owe any of us that courtesy, but it would have been a nice gesture. In the end, maybe their way of doing that is to leak information to select media members and friend and colleagues to get the word out. In the end, if the team indeed stays in Buffalo, we'll all forget the process and move on with renewed enthusiasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Still not sure why keeping the team in Buffalo, if it's a requirement, why it hasn't been made more public, obviously the bidders would all need to know that requirement. I guess, they wanted the process to be confidential and didn't see the need to pick and chose what information is made public and what is not, just keep it all private. I'd also be curious if the 4 member trust was aware of the consternation in the community and whether they ever felt the need to relieve that with a more public pronouncement. We haven't heard anything public from any of the four on the sale process. Again, they don't owe any of us that courtesy, but it would have been a nice gesture. In the end, maybe their way of doing that is to leak information to select media members and friend and colleagues to get the word out. In the end, if the team indeed stays in Buffalo, we'll all forget the process and move on with renewed enthusiasm. I doubt the Trust leaked any information about the ongoings at all. It's possible someone like Brandon, who is there, told a confidant and that confidant betrayed him by speaking to members of the press. I don't know. Most likely, all of the leaks came from guys like Trump and JBJ and especially Morgan Stanley, who all have agendas, and reasons for certain stuff, either high quotes or low quotes, to advance those agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No Golisano bid, per JW: http://pro32.ap.org/article/ap-sources-least-3-groups-set-bid-bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No Golisano bid, per JW: http://pro32.ap.org/article/ap-sources-least-3-groups-set-bid-bills I expected this from trump, not TG. I think he knows pegula is in it for the long haul with WNY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No Golisano bid, per JW: http://pro32.ap.org/...s-set-bid-bills I expected this from trump, not TG. I think he knows pegula is in it for the long haul with WNY. I'm thinking TG served his purpose. His bid from the start has been bizarrely handled, unless it was strictly for the purpose of providing local "competition" to Pegula's bid, IMO. I have a feeling (no inside knowledge whatsoever) he was asked to submit a bid by The Trust after the 1st round of non-binding bids came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I'm thinking TG served his purpose. His bid from the start has been bizarrely handled, unless it was strictly for the purpose of providing local "competition" to Pegula's bid, IMO. I have a feeling (no inside knowledge whatsoever) he was asked to submit a bid by The Trust after the 1st round of non-binding bids came in. makes plenty of sense. this news makes me feel pretty comfortable with Terry P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWins Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I don't find it surprising that TG hasn't submitted a bid... When he owned the Sabres TG never impressed me as "wanting to win"... Pegula wants to win... That's why I believe Pegula will be the Bills new owner when the smoke clears... Pegula has done all the things right to make this purchase... He hired Steve Greenberg who has real experience in these matters, sold the 1.75B mineral rights to free up $$.... Pegula will prevail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No Golisano bid, per JW: http://pro32.ap.org/...s-set-bid-bills Good! Thanks for saving the Sabres, but let Pegs save the Bills. And BJ still being in the Toronto group is great news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) @AdamBenigni Re: @john_wawrow report, I can tell you that for weeks a source has told me Golisano has not been a part of the #Bills bidding process. Edited September 3, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 That Benigni guy knows zilch. He placed sources on both sides of Golisano's bid and then just said "conflicting reports." Awful journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykidsdad Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Anyone know anything about Pegula's oldest children and their mother? What is the long term family history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 With Golisano out it does look very good for Pegula. Golisano was either just helping out Mary Wilson or knows he is not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts