GrudginglyPessimistic Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 One thing that is funny about several threads (as I have seen this point stated as fact in several different threads I am starting a new one to make a point about reality) is that some posters keep insisting its Mr. Ralph's team and his will clearly says )an/or the law forces him to) sell the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. My sense (and to some extent this is an opinion based on staight-forward observation rather than seeing the actual contract Ralph signed when he bought the franchise so I happy to be PROVEN wrong by someone linking to the actual contract- though I suspect others will merely have their own fact-free opinions about this) is that: When Ralph bought the franchise from the AFL long ago for mere pennies in modern dollars, he agreed contractually be buy the franchise subject to the rules of the AFL. When the AFL merged with the NFL, Mr. Ralph's ownership by his agreement became subject to the rules of ownership of the NFL. Under current NFL rules Mr. Ralph or his estate cannot simply sale the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. The NFL retains the right to veto any sale of a team unless 75% of the current ownership approves by vote of this new owner. If Mr. Ralph's will were to state that the franchise he owns under NFL rules will simply be sold to the highest bidder, this is all well and good as long as his fellow owners vote to approve such a sale, otherwise it is null and void and then off we go to the courts for them to decide with power or equity and stare decisis how ownership is to be determined. If you are looking for an example of this look no further than last week where we saw the NFL do just what us cynics expect would happen. The owners looked at where the money was and the money lies with the TV networks which currently provide over 2/3 of current NFL revenue. The networks have little interest in large conflict that a row with the broader public, or with the owner's partners in the NFLPA would cause, Tagliaboo-boo made this clear to the owners in negotiations over the last CBA. Owners that instead put their faith in the old George Halas style NFL where the team owners simply did as they wanted were beaten in a 30-2 vote. We saw in the unequal battle over Limbaugh that a mere letter from the NFLPA was enough to get the bid team's organizer Dave Checketts to show Limbaugh the door as part of the bidding team as there was no way they were gonna score 75% of the owners with Limbaugh controversy weighing down the bid. If Mr. Ralph's estate simply sold to the highest bidder and this bidder turned out to be the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler (or actually was someone controversial be it Limbaugh or Madonna or PETA) this owner would fail to get 75% support and the deal would be null and void. If Mr. Ralph's fellow team owners judge it not be in their business interests to fight through the NFLPA, through threats to their partial exemption from antitrust laws or whatever, the deal would not go through as auctioned and the whole thing would end up in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Welcome back Dik Smub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 why would any other owner want to keep a franchise in buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If the highest bidder gets enough yes votes, then your scenario is incorrect. The Bills will be sold to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Holy shiat, WTF did I just read. Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, use better grammar and make your sentences readable. Lord save us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Who is Mr. Ralph!?!?! It is Mr. WILSON.... Mr. *insert last name here*...!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey98277 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 So your whole claim is that Hitler, PITA, or Madonna wouldn't get approved, but I don't see what that has to do with the highest bidder, not many people have any interest in buffalo and if the team stays hear, I would have to say with market being small they could care less, it would benefit the other owners for buffalo to move to a bigger market. It costs the bigger market teams money because they have to share with the smaller teams, so I don't see how they would vote to keep it that way...unless Hitler is in the market I think we are SOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 why would any other owner want to keep a franchise in buffalo? A couple reasons: (1) although the Ralph is a dung heap, he doesn't need a stadium: savings: $700m, unless L.A. or Toronto builds him one. (2) dependable fan base that would probably pay a few bucks more and still fill the place. Now, whether this is a better financial deal than the return on the investment a new, higher revenue stadium with an uncertain fan base is the crux of the matter... also, moving to a more attractive city would bring a wider variety of coach and player possibilities. Gruden ain't moving from Tampa to Cheektowaga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIE HARD 1967 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sure, that may be true but it doesn't always work this way! John Y Brown and Paul Snyder bought the Buffalo Braves and moved the team later after attendance fell below the NBA average. All you have to do is field a crumy team, attendance falls, and you move! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griswold Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Well.. you are correct. Any new owner would have to be approved by the other owners. But, just about anyone would be approved. The owners are on flimsy legal grounds to bar ownership to particular people. So they would choose not not to bar ownership to anyone unless it was a slam dunk case. So, it is pretty safe in casual conversation to say the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 So your whole claim is that Hitler, PITA, or Madonna wouldn't get approved, but I don't see what that has to do with the highest bidder I think he's saying, if Hitler, PETA, and Madonna bid 1 billion bucks, and the NFL wouldn't approve them as owners, then Warren Buffet could buy them for 900 million. As far as keeping them in Buff.... Yeah... this team could definitely saty here and live off the Toronto market. The key to doing that is put a product on the field that wins and has a few stars. Put more focus on maketing to Toronto and have players frequent there as much as possible. They can sell more luxury suites to Toronto businesses and businessmen and for a higher price.... and don't worry about money for a new stadium.... if it means losing the Bills, NYS will shove it up the asses of the taxpayers again... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 why would any other owner want to keep a franchise in buffalo? Are you serious? One of the most loyal dependable fan bases in the league. Try fielded a losing football team 4 years straight in another town and watch at what happens at the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 So your whole claim is that Hitler, PITA, or Madonna wouldn't get approved, but I don't see what that has to do with the highest bidder, not many people have any interest in buffalo and if the team stays hear, I would have to say with market being small they could care less, it would benefit the other owners for buffalo to move to a bigger market. It costs the bigger market teams money because they have to share with the smaller teams, so I don't see how they would vote to keep it that way...unless Hitler is in the market I think we are SOL. In our grandmother's NFL, the market was the local municipality. In today's NFL the market is actually a bunch of eyeballs watching TV so the TV nets view it as a good thing to deliver $ to the to create a product they can sell commercials around. The market (and thus the real $ for an NFL team owner) is found in expanding the product to Mexico City, Toronto, Berlin, Tokyo and other places. The local market is not a non-factor, but in an NFL where 2/3 of the revenue comes from the TV nets, it is a mistake for folks not to realize that being a small market in terms of stadium sales is a far less significant part of the $ than it used to be. With a fuller understanding of the real market the value of the Bills lies much more in its connection to tradition which offered by its being in the league you are selling to the new eyeballs. In addition, the negatives associated with a move if it leads to threats to the NFL's limited antitrust exemption make it a move to be put off as long as possible. I am not saying that is a stone cold certainty that it will happen a particular way. Its just simply not as straightforward as many posters argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills88 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 One thing that is funny about several threads (as I have seen this point stated as fact in several different threads I am starting a new one to make a point about reality) is that some posters keep insisting its Mr. Ralph's team and his will clearly says )an/or the law forces him to) sell the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. My sense (and to some extent this is an opinion based on staight-forward observation rather than seeing the actual contract Ralph signed when he bought the franchise so I happy to be PROVEN wrong by someone linking to the actual contract- though I suspect others will merely have their own fact-free opinions about this) is that: When Ralph bought the franchise from the AFL long ago for mere pennies in modern dollars, he agreed contractually be buy the franchise subject to the rules of the AFL. When the AFL merged with the NFL, Mr. Ralph's ownership by his agreement became subject to the rules of ownership of the NFL. Under current NFL rules Mr. Ralph or his estate cannot simply sale the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. The NFL retains the right to veto any sale of a team unless 75% of the current ownership approves by vote of this new owner. If Mr. Ralph's will were to state that the franchise he owns under NFL rules will simply be sold to the highest bidder, this is all well and good as long as his fellow owners vote to approve such a sale, otherwise it is null and void and then off we go to the courts for them to decide with power or equity and stare decisis how ownership is to be determined. If you are looking for an example of this look no further than last week where we saw the NFL do just what us cynics expect would happen. The owners looked at where the money was and the money lies with the TV networks which currently provide over 2/3 of current NFL revenue. The networks have little interest in large conflict that a row with the broader public, or with the owner's partners in the NFLPA would cause, Tagliaboo-boo made this clear to the owners in negotiations over the last CBA. Owners that instead put their faith in the old George Halas style NFL where the team owners simply did as they wanted were beaten in a 30-2 vote. We saw in the unequal battle over Limbaugh that a mere letter from the NFLPA was enough to get the bid team's organizer Dave Checketts to show Limbaugh the door as part of the bidding team as there was no way they were gonna score 75% of the owners with Limbaugh controversy weighing down the bid. If Mr. Ralph's estate simply sold to the highest bidder and this bidder turned out to be the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler (or actually was someone controversial be it Limbaugh or Madonna or PETA) this owner would fail to get 75% support and the deal would be null and void. If Mr. Ralph's fellow team owners judge it not be in their business interests to fight through the NFLPA, through threats to their partial exemption from antitrust laws or whatever, the deal would not go through as auctioned and the whole thing would end up in the courts. You obviously do not know what state decisis means. But anyway, your post possibly would have made a point if it tried to make a point that Bills fans have keep up the passionate base, so if the team was sold, the NFL would put a team back in Buffalo. However, you did not do that. Your post was all over and you may be drunk. Given that, I'm not sure why I am ever replying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtippur Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I still think the lack of success on the field is rubbing off on the fans. This thread is just one more reason to believe that. Like our offense, this thread is wrong on many levels, should be flagged, and really doesn't accomplish what it's intended to. At least figure out the difference between sale and sell...sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 With a fuller understanding of the real market the value of the Bills lies much more in its connection to tradition which offered by its being in the league you are selling to the new eyeballs. We're all Bills fans BUT are you really professing the Bills have some tradition worth $$$ to the NFL? This is a league that moved the Baltimore Colts. Our greatest claim to fame is four consecutive AFC Championships surrounded by decades of failure. Good luck selling that tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 The OP is total nonsense, essentially claiming that if the NFL refused the highest bidder then the whole thing could get tied up in court with some other 3rd party being able to somehow acquire the team. Just using basic common sense, if the NFL refused the bid of a prospective owner, and that got taken to court, either that prospective owner would win, in which case the highest bidder would acquire the team, OR they would lose, in which case the NFL would award the team to the remaining highest bidder. There's no plausible legal scenario where the team would somehow become available to anyone other than the highest bidding team that the NFL approves, or somehow prevails in court if the NFL refuses them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uforesircher Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 One thing that is funny about several threads (as I have seen this point stated as fact in several different threads I am starting a new one to make a point about reality) is that some posters keep insisting its Mr. Ralph's team and his will clearly says )an/or the law forces him to) sell the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. My sense (and to some extent this is an opinion based on staight-forward observation rather than seeing the actual contract Ralph signed when he bought the franchise so I happy to be PROVEN wrong by someone linking to the actual contract- though I suspect others will merely have their own fact-free opinions about this) is that: When Ralph bought the franchise from the AFL long ago for mere pennies in modern dollars, he agreed contractually be buy the franchise subject to the rules of the AFL. When the AFL merged with the NFL, Mr. Ralph's ownership by his agreement became subject to the rules of ownership of the NFL. Under current NFL rules Mr. Ralph or his estate cannot simply sale the team to the highest bidder regardless of what anyone else thinks. The NFL retains the right to veto any sale of a team unless 75% of the current ownership approves by vote of this new owner. If Mr. Ralph's will were to state that the franchise he owns under NFL rules will simply be sold to the highest bidder, this is all well and good as long as his fellow owners vote to approve such a sale, otherwise it is null and void and then off we go to the courts for them to decide with power or equity and stare decisis how ownership is to be determined. If you are looking for an example of this look no further than last week where we saw the NFL do just what us cynics expect would happen. The owners looked at where the money was and the money lies with the TV networks which currently provide over 2/3 of current NFL revenue. The networks have little interest in large conflict that a row with the broader public, or with the owner's partners in the NFLPA would cause, Tagliaboo-boo made this clear to the owners in negotiations over the last CBA. Owners that instead put their faith in the old George Halas style NFL where the team owners simply did as they wanted were beaten in a 30-2 vote. We saw in the unequal battle over Limbaugh that a mere letter from the NFLPA was enough to get the bid team's organizer Dave Checketts to show Limbaugh the door as part of the bidding team as there was no way they were gonna score 75% of the owners with Limbaugh controversy weighing down the bid. If Mr. Ralph's estate simply sold to the highest bidder and this bidder turned out to be the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler (or actually was someone controversial be it Limbaugh or Madonna or PETA) this owner would fail to get 75% support and the deal would be null and void. If Mr. Ralph's fellow team owners judge it not be in their business interests to fight through the NFLPA, through threats to their partial exemption from antitrust laws or whatever, the deal would not go through as auctioned and the whole thing would end up in the courts. There is a reason that I read everything on here but do not post much. However, this post is SO wrong AND bad that it warrants my reply. You have gone so far over the usual mindless dribble - not to mention your neglect of the English language - that I am compelled to point it out to you. Mr. Wilson may sell anything that he owns - it is his right. Might I suggest you sell some of the things you own and take some night courses in English and perhaps American Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTW2012 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Is "sale" a verb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 We're all Bills fans BUT are you really professing the Bills have some tradition worth $$$ to the NFL? This is a league that moved the Baltimore Colts. Our greatest claim to fame is four consecutive AFC Championships surrounded by decades of failure. Good luck selling that tradition. How do they sell the Cubs tradition? They have been losing for over a 100 years and been in existence for over 130 years. Sure... The Bills are losing... I just don't understand how people are getting really sour. The experience is still great, just as at Wrigley. Why don't we just embrace that "there is always next year" mentality that seems to keep them streaming in at the gates on the crazy NorthSide of Chicago and the REGIONAL MARKET that of course was helped many years ago by stations like WGN. If we do that, the team will NEVER move. It is up to us... I know it sucks losing... But, come on. You want the Bills to move, then stop "bill-lieving" and start "bills-leaving." Ya... I know bad, bad puns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts