FluffHead Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bills-cannot-be-relocated-before-2020-the-long-reported-400m-buyout-option-does-not-exist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bills-cannot-be-relocated-before-2020-the-long-reported-400m-buyout-option-does-not-exist/ total nonsense http://www2.erie.gov/exec/index.php?q=buffalo-bills-stadium-lease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 total nonsense http://www2.erie.gov...s-stadium-lease Um, that's basically exactly what the article that FluffHead linked to says... Unless the Bills default on the Non-relocation terms, which will be nigh-on impossible, they cannot be relocated any time before the 7th year of the lease is completed. If, by some strange happenstance, the Bills default on the terms, they will be forced to pay $400M in liquidated damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FluffHead Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Reading this at first I thought they were reporting that the smaller buyout post year seven did not exist. It appears he is reporting that the large buyout of 400M doesn't exist, therefor locking them in to Buffalo for seven years. If I am reading that correctly, it is largely irrelevant as I don't believe anyone would have paid that much to move the team anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Both sites say a similar thing ... Secured by right of specific performance, backed up by $400,000,000 in liquidated damages. What this random blogger quoting someone else is saying that the "right of specific performance" can't happen. I'm no lawyer, but if it cannot happen why would it even be in the agreement. Like everything else, we will know when we know. Edited March 26, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Both sites say a similar thing ... What this random blogger quoting someone else is saying that the "right of specific performance" can't happen. I'm no lawyer, but if it cannot happen why would it even be in the agreement. Like everything else, we will know when we know. I'm not saying the websites right but it's not a random blogger. It's John kryk who is a 23 year journalist for the Toronto sun and he names his source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 all I can say is, that his interpretation is above my pay grade, I hope he is right. i'm just surprised that Polancarz and others haven't stated that previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Interesting. However if this were truly the case and it was Ralph's gift to WNY why did he not give the "gift" in person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Interesting. However if this were truly the case and it was Ralph's gift to WNY why did he not give the "gift" in person? because it could have been changed if he was still alive? Because it was his final farewell to the city of Buffalo? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.c...does-not-exist/ there is always a price and this one is > $400 M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 all I can say is, that his interpretation is above my pay grade, I hope he is right. Above mine as well. I just Googled it a bit and the way I read it, if the Bills are in breach of contract (i.e. break the lease) they pay $400 mil which is what people have been saying all along. But I am no lawyer, in fact legalese makes me dizzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Both sites say a similar thing ... What this random blogger quoting someone else is saying that the "right of specific performance" can't happen. I'm no lawyer, but if it cannot happen why would it even be in the agreement. Like everything else, we will know when we know. He's clearly quoting a guy who he presents as a legit NFL insider very familiar with the lease deal.. Poloncranz's own site says it's backed by a $400 million penalty--no mention of a buyout or sliding scale buyout. Edited March 26, 2014 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Both sites say a similar thing ... What this random blogger quoting someone else is saying that the "right of specific performance" can't happen. I'm no lawyer, but if it cannot happen why would it even be in the agreement. Like everything else, we will know when we know. It's not that it can't happen...if you read the terms, the Bills agreed to a Non-Relocation Agreement...the written terms say that, if the team somehow were able to breech the contract (by, say, winning a legal battle in court), they would be subject to $400M in liquidated damages. Above mine as well. I just Googled it a bit and the way I read it, if the Bills are in breach of contract (i.e. break the lease) they pay $400 mil which is what people have been saying all along. But I am no lawyer, in fact legalese makes me dizzy. This is correct...however, by law, since it's a signed and executed contract, they cannot breach it without being taken to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Seems kind of nit-picky to me. What if the new owner pulled an Irsay or a Modell and just up and left? Erie County could sue the Bills for breach of contract, and would win, and would presumably get the $400 million liquid damages specified in the lease. Kryk's supposition (or more accurately, his source's supposition) seems to be that a new owner "can't" leave without first getting prior permission, but people break contracts all the time without first getting prior permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Seems kind of nit-picky to me. What if the new owner pulled an Irsay or a Modell and just up and left? Erie County could sue the Bills for breach of contract, and would win, and would presumably get the $400 million liquid damages specified in the lease. Kryk's supposition (or more accurately, his source's supposition) seems to be that a new owner "can't" leave without first getting prior permission, but people break contracts all the time without first getting prior permission. I read it differently--the Bills would have to win in court before they could play a home game in another city...and in the case that they did win, they'd then owe the County the $400M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Seems kind of nit-picky to me. What if the new owner pulled an Irsay or a Modell and just up and left? Erie County could sue the Bills for breach of contract, and would win, and would presumably get the $400 million liquid damages specified in the lease. Kryk's supposition (or more accurately, his source's supposition) seems to be that a new owner "can't" leave without first getting prior permission, but people break contracts all the time without first getting prior permission. This. Even IF a new owner breaks the lease, worst thing that can happen to him is he's out $400 million. Best thing, he gets that overturned and goes along his merry way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) This. Even IF a new owner breaks the lease, worst thing that can happen to him is he's out $400 million. Best thing, he gets that overturned and goes along his merry way. I don't believe that's what the lease says; if the Bills just up and left in the middle of the night, breaching a contract with the County, the County could take them to court seeking an emergency injunction that would prevent them from playing a home game in another location. What Kryk is saying is that the $400M is a safeguard in place for the County under the event that they lost the court case...but that they likely wouldn't. Edited March 26, 2014 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Seems kind of nit-picky to me. What if the new owner pulled an Irsay or a Modell and just up and left? Erie County could sue the Bills for breach of contract, and would win, and would presumably get the $400 million liquid damages specified in the lease. Kryk's supposition (or more accurately, his source's supposition) seems to be that a new owner "can't" leave without first getting prior permission, but people break contracts all the time without first getting prior permission. Won't + $400 million + legal fees + $275 million relocation fees = "can't". This. Even IF a new owner breaks the lease, worst thing that can happen to him is he's out $400 million. Best thing, he gets that overturned and goes along his merry way. It can't get "overturned". Edited March 26, 2014 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I don't believe that's what the lease says; if the Bills just up and left in the middle of the night, breaching a contract with the County, the County could take them to court seeking an emergency injunction that would prevent them from playing a home game in another location. What Kryk is saying is that the $400M is a safeguard in place for the County under the event that they lost the court case...but that they likely wouldn't. And then what? These owners are billionaires. Billionaires get what they want. Well, because they're billionaires. Think the state/county are going to be able to drag out a fight indefinitely? I'm not so sure =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) He's clearly quoting a guy who he presents as a legit NFL insider very familiar with the lease deal.. Poloncranz's own site says it's backed by a $400 million penalty--no mention of a buyout or sliding scale buyout. There is a link to a PDF file on the county execs site that spells out the non-relocation agreement for anyone interested. I am no lawyer but it looks to me like a "non-relocation default" is certainly possible. But I could be 100% wrong. The Bills acknowledge and agree that, if upon the occurrence of a Non-Relocation Default, equitable relief is not granted by a court of competent jurisdiction for any reason, or is otherwise unavailable, the payment by the Bills of liquidated damages is the next most appropriate remedy. Therefore, in the event of a Non-Relocation Default, and the failure of any court to grant the equitable relief described in Section 5(a) above, the Bills shall pay liquidated damages to the County and the ECSC, in the aggregate, in the amount of Four Hundred Million ($400,000,000) Dollars; Then again, this is also in the document so who the hell knows ... The County, the State and/or the ECSC shall be entitled to obtaininjunctive relief prohibiting action, directly or indirectly, by the Bills that causes or would reasonably be expected to cause a Non-Relocation Default, Edited March 26, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts