Updated: Yannick tweets again

[billykay]

3 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

This is nuts. So people build a house on land they don’t own? Theoretically, couldn’t the land holder just exponentially increase the rent every year? What is someone going to do, move their house?

Well, of course you would. I would expect any of us  fans to do the same. It isn’t our money. The real question is, would the business of the Buffalo Bills make that financial decision. 

In Florida, there are many developments where you buy a house but pay rent for the land. Because of this, the homes , many of which are manufactured homes, are generally pretty cheap.

[GunnerBill]

22 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I believe it is a fixed amount, it is an odd system, comes from the old days of who owned the land many hundreds of years ago some Dukes  family was gifted a huge chunk of land by whoever the king was at the time of the current Royal house hold, ( the Queen of England’s family ) and it stays in that family’s ownership forever it would appear. I don’t know all the specifics obviously, but unlike Here, the land has been owned by the upper classes since forever...

 

I am not sure where you are getting your facts but this is not true. 

[BringBackOrton]

5 hours ago, Seoulofstone said:

 

 That's a very narrow view though. This guy has far exceeded expectations for a third round pick, and the franchise won't reward him with a long term deal. He wants to continue his career in a place where he's valued with a long term deal. Any franchise could say we will get better. I mean what else are they supposed to say? Jax have Josh Allen and Calais Campbell too. They are holding him hostage. No bueno.

They want to give him a long term deal.

[Punching Bag]

3 hours ago, Augie said:

 

They also build residential and commercial properties in the US on land acquired via land lease. Very long leases, often 50-100 years. With commercial properties they figure the improvements are fully depreciated by the time the land lease expires. I noticed they do entire subdivisions a lot in Mississippi and Alabama on public lands. Strange, I know!  

 

If you have 45 years left on the lease, people don’t worry about it as much, but the value generally declines as the expiration of the lease gets closer. 

 

This is very common in Hawaii where state ones most of land.  Had a timeshare we had to pay into lease renewal even though we had option to not renew.

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, BeastMaster said:

I agree.

 

It's one thing to pay a guy or ro trade for a good contract.

 

To give up a high pick and pay top money is what bad organizations do.

 

 

It seemed to work out okay for the two teams in the Super Bowl this year.  The Chiefs tagged Ford, traded him to SF and SF then gave him a big contract.  Seattle tagged Clark, then traded him to the Chiefs who then signed him to a big contract.  Really, it’s okay to trade for proven talent and then to pay that talent.  Really. 

[Don Otreply]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not sure where you are getting your facts but this is not true. 

I believe it is called a freehold Or leasehold, one of which you do not own the property but have use of it for an extended period of time, free hold means you actually purchased the land and one then owns it forever basically, Some of the Royals according to myth and rumor own big chunks of land that towns sit on and as I understand it those folk pay the royal family and amount of money annually for the land. I certainly do not know the particulars of course, When a country is as old as the UK, and with its history of kings and peasants, land ownership through the ages is far different game than in the States. 

[PIZ]

So, who gets # 91 if the Bills get him?

[BeastMaster]

18 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

It seemed to work out okay for the two teams in the Super Bowl this year.  The Chiefs tagged Ford, traded him to SF and SF then gave him a big contract.  Seattle tagged Clark, then traded him to the Chiefs who then signed him to a big contract.  Really, it’s okay to trade for proven talent and then to pay that talent.  Really. 

We'll see how it works long term as both those teams are now in difficult cap situations. 

 

Not having a high round pick certainly won't help if they have to make tough decisions.

 

 

[Buffalo Junction]

7 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

If the Jags push this he will sit out this season, imo.  The team is not particularly well thought of, and Khan wants to move it to London. 
It’s good to see other teams in turmoil instead of the Bills, ?
 

Life is really freakin expensive in London and it’s suburbs, makes NYC look affordable. You can buy a house in England, but you can’t own the land under it in most cases,  you have to pay some Duke/Lord/Royal  rent on the land on top of your mortgage payment. By American standards that dog don’t hunt. 

Gotta love a good leasehold. It’s becoming more common here now as well. ?

[GunnerBill]

30 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I believe it is called a freehold Or leasehold, one of which you do not own the property but have use of it for an extended period of time, free hold means you actually purchased the land and one then owns it forever basically, Some of the Royals according to myth and rumor own big chunks of land that towns sit on and as I understand it those folk pay the royal family and amount of money annually for the land. I certainly do not know the particulars of course, When a country is as old as the UK, and with its history of kings and peasants, land ownership through the ages is far different game than in the States. 

 

There is such a thing as leasehold. My flat is a leasehold. I don't own the land. I lease land for the next 74 years but I also have a legal right to extend that lease (though it costs) and my ground rent for the land is £5 per year. It is not owned by the Royal Family (they own 0.03% of British land) or a nobleman it is owned by a clever businessman who spotted an opportunity in the late 80s. Only about 15% of all English homes are leasehold and so covered by these rules and they are mainly flats and mainly in London. 

 

Pretty much every house (as opposed to flat) in the UK is a freehold. That means you own the house and the land it is yours until you choose to sell. That is 85% of British homes. 

 

So in summary you are right there are some British homes (well, English actually, leasehold doesn't exist in Scotland) where you own the house but lease the land, albeit you have a legal right to extend your lease. However, it is a minority of homes and the vast majority are freeholds where the owner owns the land. 

 

But you are definitely not right that you pay money to the Queen or the Royals. In fact it is much more likely that the original owners of the land were the Church rather than the Royals. 

[Don Otreply]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is such a thing as leasehold. My flat is a leasehold. I don't own the land. I lease land for the next 74 years but I also have a legal right to extend that lease (though it costs) and my ground rent for the land is £5 per year. It is not owned by the Royal Family (they own 0.03% of British land) or a nobleman it is owned by a clever businessman who spotted an opportunity in the late 80s. Only about 15% of all English homes are leasehold and so covered by these rules and they are mainly flats and mainly in London. 

 

Pretty much every house (as opposed to flat) in the UK is a freehold. That means you own the house and the land it is yours until you choose to sell. That is 85% of British homes. 

 

So in summary you are right there are some British homes (well, English actually, leasehold doesn't exist in Scotland) where you own the house but lease the land, albeit you have a legal right to extend your lease. However, it is a minority of homes and the vast majority are freeholds where the owner owns the land. 

 

But you are definitely not right that you pay money to the Queen or the Royals. In fact it is much more likely that the original owners of the land were the Church rather than the Royals. 

I stand corrected, I was misinformed evidently, thanks for the education, never to late to learn as my Ninety year old father says. ?

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I stand corrected, I was misinformed evidently, thanks for the education, never to late to learn as my Ninety year old father says. ?

 

Where you were right is living in London is expensive. But then it is the greatest city in the world so that comes with a price tag. The super rich from America, the China, the Gulf states and Russia are all heavily invested in the London property market. People want to live here. 

[LSHMEAB]

8 hours ago, whatdrought said:

This is an interesting situation because it could, potentially, really shine a light on the misuse of the franchise tag. I don’t remember many situations where guys have straight up said “I don’t want to be here, and I’m not signing” only to have the team slap the tag on them anyways. The tag was meant to be a bridge to a long term deal, but that’s clearly not the case here. 

Peerless Price wasn't as overt, but he made it clear through his agent that he wanted out of Buffalo. TD(I think) tagged him with zero intent of resigning him. Bills (of that era) made an uncharacteristically terrific trade with ATL. I don't think it's all that uncommon. Maybe bad form, but not particularly uncommon.

 

The situation is somewhat unique in that Yannick has been very public about his desire to get out; I'll give you that much.

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Where you were right is living in London is expensive. But then it is the greatest city in the world so that comes with a price tag. The super rich from America, the China, the Gulf states and Russia are all heavily invested in the London property market. People want to live here. 

I love London!  Hoping the Bills would play there again soon. How bout those Watford boys? 

[BillsFan17]

Sucks to suck, everyone wants to talk about weather and geography as factors. However, winning seems to be the biggest factor, and I cant blame Yannick from wanting to get away from the Jags. The culture there has been on a big time spiral, and honestly if it weren't for Minshew being an enigma, they would be in really bad shape.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I love London!  Hoping the Bills would play there again soon. How bout those Watford boys? 

 

I missed the game Saturday night but it was nice to see the Scousers brought down a peg or two. They are going to be unbearable in about a months time. It will be as if their 30 years of ineptitude never counted.  

Just now, BillsFan17 said:

Sucks to suck, everyone wants to talk about weather and geography as factors. However, winning seems to be the biggest factor, and I cant blame Yannick from wanting to get away from the Jags. The culture there has been on a big time spiral, and honestly if it weren't for Minshew being an enigma, they would be in really bad shape.

 

But even Minshew.... he doesn't strike me as a guy you build a culture around. The whole organisation feels fractured.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I missed the game Saturday night but it was nice to see the Scousers brought down a peg or two. They are going to be unbearable in about a months time. It will be as if their 30 years of ineptitude never counted.  

Took the train up to Vicarage Road when we were in London in October (Bills bye week). It was a blast! 

[YoloinOhio]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

Here's the problem with the proposed scenario:

-Foles current cap hit whilst on the Jags roster is $21.8M, which is $15.125M fully guaranteed salary and $6.25M amortized signing bonus

-If the Jags trade him, they pass off the $15.125M salary - but the next two years of his signing bonus accelerate and the Jags cap hit becomes $18.75M

 

So this maneuver only saves them $3.6M cap, then they have to back-fill backup QB.

 

I don't see what the Jags motivation would be to give up a 2nd round draft pick and their backup QB, for $3.6M cap

Well, crap. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

So you are getting a competent backup QB that has proven he can win big games if needed, Yannick AND a 2nd in exchange for what? Nothing? And I can get out from under the rest of Foles deal with no penalty after this season? Why exactly would someone not do that? 

Well those 2 moves eat like $35-40 million in cap space this year and then another $12.5 million to cut Foles next year. 

 

Basically we're losing the possibility of an elite starting salary over 2 years to take on Foles who might not play. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Buffalo_Stampede

[BarleyNY]

33 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

We'll see how it works long term as both those teams are now in difficult cap situations. 

 

Not having a high round pick certainly won't help if they have to make tough decisions.

 

 

I’d love to have the tough decisions that come with winning a Super Bowl.  People often overlook the value inherent in trades like this.  The certainty of getting an elite player that otherwise would be unattainable except by drafting that player is of enormous value.  Simply put, the success rate of hitting on even first round draft picks is only about 50% and the threshold for “success” is pretty low.  This article got a 53% success rate for players averaging an AV of 5.  To put that in perspective 581 players in the NFL had an AV of 5 or greater. 
 

https://theriotreport.com/scout-camp-2018-about-the-author/

 

Finding an elite player is much less likely, obviously, and elite players change the outcomes of games.  The possibilities of draft picks are fun, but they’re just lottery tickets.  And cap space is only worth something when it’s used effectively.  I’d give 22 and more plus a market value contract for a young, elite talent - especially one who plays a premium position.  That allocation of resources would almost certainly help the team more than drafting with those picks and signing FAs with the same cap space.