TH3 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/01/contracts-american-football Pretty weak effort by the Economist when the the first line is..."Like the team’s post-industrial hometown, —have fallen on hard times" Come on....also makes the assumption that ownership and TT won't have further discussions Edited January 12, 2017 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 And Mexico would pay for the stadium. My sources tell me that is where the Chargers will wind up. Or was it the Raiders? Wait, which source was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Great piece. This really is a classic prisoner's dilemma. Pretty weak effort by the Economist when the the first line is..."Like the team’s post-industrial hometown, —have fallen on hard times"[/size] Come on....also makes the assumption that ownership and TT won't have further discussions[/size] I think the piece is great and spot on. Was that article written by that idiot Jerry Sullivan!? It must have been someone at the Buffalo News. Hacks! Oh wait....The Economist. This is now about the 5th article coming from big league national media in the last week or 10 days taking aim at the Bills squarely between the eyes. It's a **** show over there...can we please, PLEASE strip it down to bare metal? If not this off-season, next? The clown show has to end at some point, right? Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/01/contracts-american-football Yes J.F. (full name not provided and no guarantee those are real issues) showed his full expertise on NFL citing stats which favored his (or her or their) argument. Should be a poster here. TT choose to go along with contract to get a raise in 2016 giving the Bills the option to keep him or not and the 'reciprocal altruism' also applies to TT's reputation if he has surgery to attempt to ensure he will get contract guarantee - NFL teams will be aware of the Jarius Byrd like gouging and be wary about any contract in which he can be paid to not play insisting that he pay for insurance. "This Tyrod contract is an embarrassment," Trump said. "The Pegulas have been a disaster for the City of Buffalo. Absolute disaster. If I owned the Bills, our contracts would be much better and they'd be in the Super Bowl." So claims the clown-in-chief after he moved team to another city getting 750M profit. Pretty weak effort by the Economist when the the first line is..."Like the team’s post-industrial hometown, —have fallen on hard times" Come on....also makes the assumption that ownership and TT won't have further discussions Like posts on the wall only facts twisted are ones which support case; in college Economics course the is article would get a D at best and a F if professor thought the student paid a non-competent hack to do it. [Add video from Rodney Dangerfield "Back to School" scene with Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - can't access videos from work] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Yes J.F. (full name not provided and no guarantee those are real issues) showed his full expertise on NFL citing stats which favored his (or her or their) argument. Should be a poster here. TT choose to go along with contract to get a raise in 2016 giving the Bills the option to keep him or not and the 'reciprocal altruism' also applies to TT's reputation if he has surgery to attempt to ensure he will get contract guarantee - NFL teams will be aware of the Jarius Byrd like gouging and be wary about any contract in which he can be paid to not play insisting that he pay for insurance. So claims the clown-in-chief after he moved team to another city getting 750M profit. Like posts on the wall only facts twisted are ones which support case; in college Economics course the is article would get a D at best and a F if professor thought the student paid a non-competent hack to do it. [Add video from Rodney Dangerfield "Back to School" scene with Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - can't access videos from work] By virtually every combo measure, taylor was at least middle of the pack this season. Find one for me that says he wasn't. Emphasis on COMBINED stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/01/contracts-american-football Thanks for posting. That was a good read. "This Tyrod contract is an embarrassment," Trump said. "The Pegulas have been a disaster for the City of Buffalo. Absolute disaster. If I owned the Bills, our contracts would be much better and they'd be in the Super Bowl." I read that in his voice. I'm guessing that the injury clause was made intentionally vague - I've negotiated enough athlete contracts to know that lawyers don't write anything without a reason. Seems like both the Bills and Tyrod have arguments to make regarding the clause... Which actually means American taxpayers will pay for it, but don't worry Mexico will pay us back! Heitz, You know any good entertainment lawyers in NJ/NY, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 And Mexico would pay for the stadium. Couldn't go with Toronto? Or Bon Jovi? Or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) Once again, a story about Taylor's surgery that leaves out the fact the Bills told him to get it done. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18418657/buffalo-bills-involved-decision-tyrod-taylor-core-muscle-surgery Edited January 13, 2017 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/01/contracts-american-football He lost me at "As a result, players on non-guaranteed deals bear the lion′s share of their own risk of injury: whenever they get hurt, which happens quite often in such a brutal sport, their employers can simply cast them off the next year." As we know, that's not true. An injured player must be carried on the payroll and paid either at league standards, or according to the (common for vets) injury guarantee in his contract. Did not know this. Well, I'll be damned. Gregg G. Brandon Vice President & General Counsel Buffalo Bills August 2013– Present (3 years 6 months) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts