Buyout clause in lease ONLY to move to new stadium NOT for relocation

[oman128]

Ok,the new owner of the Bills fulfills the terms of the 10 year deal.

 

 

After the lease ends, he makes a deal to move the team to Toronto, who will have built a new stadium to replace the aging Skydome. No $400 million penalty.

 

Bills fans are left holding the bag. NFL owners are tired of Buffalo, and like the idea of the move to Canada.

 

Of course some legal stuff will happen someone will bring suit against the bills for moving and will have to hear about that for a while until the judge says they can move.

 

Then its bye bye bills.

[mannc]

 

 

There were several articles that said the same thing that came out. One was the former CEO of the Rams who now works for the NFL I believe who had seen and was very familiar with provisions in the lease and another one was an unnamed executive with an NFL team...I believe it might have been an ESPN story that about it

So if your sources are correct, the owner could "break" the lease by paying $28 million, but would only be free to sign a new lease for a stadium in Buffalo--perhaps at UB-Amherst. As I said, it makes zero sense. Why add such a provision at all? Edited April 14, 2014 by mannc

[thebandit27]

Ok,the new owner of the Bills fulfills the terms of the 10 year deal.

 

 

After the lease ends, he makes a deal to move the team to Toronto, who will have built a new stadium to replace the aging Skydome. No $400 million penalty.

 

Bills fans are left holding the bag. NFL owners are tired of Buffalo, and like the idea of the move to Canada.

 

Of course some legal stuff will happen someone will bring suit against the bills for moving and will have to hear about that for a while until the judge says they can move.

 

Then its bye bye bills.

 

You must be a riot at parties.

 

And by the way, is there a single fact in the world that backs this up as a sound assumption, let alone a foregone conclusion?

 

So if your sources are correct, the owner could "break" the lease by paying $28 million, but would only be free to sign a new lease for a stadium in Buffalo--perhaps at UB-Amherst. As I said, it makes zero sense. Why add such a provision at all?

 

Because then the region can keep the team and the County still gets compensated for the remainder of the lease.

[mannc]

 

 

You must be a riot at parties.

 

And by the way, is there a single fact in the world that backs this up as a sound assumption, let alone a foregone conclusion?

 

 

 

Because then the region can keep the team and the County still gets compensated for the remainder of the lease.

not following you. How would that work?

 

Can anyone find a link to the actual document? It should be publicly available. That is the only way to settle this argument, I'm afraid.

[oman128]

Busines law 101, when the terms of the contract have been met in year 10, and no new future contract with the city/county/state exist, there is nothing keeping the Bills in Buffalo. The owner can move the team with NFL approval.

 

I know, that not its not what fans want to hear. But given the declining economic base and polulation of WNY you must face facts, that the new owners care about making money. I'm sure there is more money in Toronto or L.A. than Buffalo.

Edited April 14, 2014 by oman128

[Big Turk]

From the actual lease:

 

"Non-Relocation Term: The term of this Agreement, beginning on July 31, 2013, and ending on the Stadium Lease Expiration Date."

 

During this period further on in the lease, the Bills agree not to move the team, nor ATTEMPT to move the team...note the length of the non-relocation term---through the end of the lease. There is no mention anywhere in there regarding an early buyout of this for $28 million, rather the $400 million until the non-relocation term ends. So they might have an option to opt out of leasing the stadium but no option to opt out of non-relocation term.

 

So if your sources are correct, the owner could "break" the lease by paying $28 million, but would only be free to sign a new lease for a stadium in Buffalo--perhaps at UB-Amherst. As I said, it makes zero sense. Why add such a provision at all?

 

Because they realize the only real way to keep this team here longterm is to build a new stadium to add revenue both for the new owner and to keep the other 31 owners happy...remember they don't like having to share revenue with Buffalo due to them not making a lot of stadium revenue...plus visiting teams get a percentage of the gate so they are expected to pull their weight for the rest of the league as well

 

This allows them to move to the new stadium if its finished before the current lease expires

Edited April 14, 2014 by matter2003

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find:

 

Stadium Lease:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf

 

Non-relocation Agreement:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf

 

The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts.

 

So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it:

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/under-lease-court-could-bar-any-new-owner-from-moving-buffalo-bills-20140412

 

Basically, they can leave in year 7, but any discussion or negotiations of leaving before that are a violation of the lease. . . . the developer wouldn't even be able to discuss the project with the Bills new owner until the opt-out came around. . . .

 

Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years).

 

The $28M would basically serve as the County's agreed upon settlement for letting the team out of the lease to go play in a new stadium in WNY . . .

 

I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted.

 

It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

 

Read the lease. The language states very clearly that both parties agree that relocation would represent "irreparable harm" to the County and be grounds for an injunction. . . .

 

True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

 

It's not just that it would be expensive, it's that they have to win in court to gain the right to pay the exorbitant costs to break the lease...a victory that the language of the lease makes extremely difficult to attain.

 

You left out the part where they win in court . . .

Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for.

 

. . . The Buffalo News article suggests that any attempt to arrange a move prior to year seven would constitute a breach of the agreements, so I'd guess it's possible that even executing a buyout in year seven in order to move would result in a court battle over whether it was a breach of the non-relocation agreement.

The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020).

 

The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end.

 

The opt out is ONLY valid if the team is moving to a new stadium here, NOT for relocation. This was coming from a report that cited several executives from other teams that were privy to all the details of the lease. There is no $28 million buyout to relocate the team, its still $400 million for the duration of the lease. The $28 million basically goes to NYS to help recoup some of the stadium costs/RWS upgrades if one gets built...

Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it.

 

The lease is ironclad against relocation for the duration of the lease, not just for another 6 year's. I think this keeps getting overlooked or is apparently misunderstood according to numerous "in the know" sources that are opening up about more details of the lease.

 

The opt out is ONLY valid if the team is moving to a new stadium here, NOT for relocation. This was coming from a report that cited several executives from other teams that were privy to all the details of the lease. There is no $28 million buyout to relocate the team, its still $400 million for the duration of the lease. The $28 million basically goes to NYS to help recoup some of the stadium costs/RWS upgrades if one gets built...

Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says. Edited April 14, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[thebandit27]

Busines law 101, when the terms of the contract have been met in year 10, and no new future contract with the city/county/state exist, there is nothing keeping the Bills in Buffalo. The owner can move the team with NFL approval.

 

I know, that not its not what fans want to hear. But given the declining economic base and polulation of WNY you must face facts, that the new owners care about making money. I'm sure there is more money in Toronto or L.A. than Buffalo.

 

You are making massive leaps here...you're assuming, among other things, that:

 

There won't be a new lease/stadium by 2022

There won't be an owner in place that wants to keep the team here

There will be an owner that wants to move the team

The new owner will get approval to do so

Etc

 

And why is it that only the folks that aren't convinced the team is leaving are somehow unrealistic, while those that can seemingly see 10 years into the future and forecast doom are somehow grounded in facts?

[thebandit27]

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find:

 

Stadium Lease:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf

 

Non-relocation Agreement:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf

 

The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts.

 

So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it:

 

 

 

Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years).

 

 

 

I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted.

 

It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

 

 

True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for.

 

 

The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020).

 

The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end.

 

Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it.

 

Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says.

 

It was my understanding that the Non-Relo was outside of the Maintenance Covevnants...can you ask one of the Darryls if that's the case?

[oman128]

 

 

You are making massive leaps here...you're assuming, among other things, that:

 

There won't be a new lease/stadium by 2022

There won't be an owner in place that wants to keep the team here

There will be an owner that wants to move the team

The new owner will get approval to do so

Etc

 

And why is it that only the folks that aren't convinced the team is leaving are somehow unrealistic, while those that can seemingly see 10 years into the future and forecast doom are somehow grounded in facts?

 

Number 1, the only way there is a new lease is if the new owner signs a new lease. If the new owner doesn't sign a new lease that means that he or she probably doesn't want to keep the team in Buffalo.

 

According to Wikipedia Buffalo is the 72nd largest city in the United States, At 259,000 a far cry from the 1950s when it was the 8th At over 580,000. Put another way over 300,000 people have left Buffalo since the 1950s. My family has all left for Florida, California and the Carolina's like thousands of others.

 

The NFL is the only professional sports franchise of the big four that does not have teams in Canada NBA,Major League Baseball and of course the NHL all have teams in Canada.

 

As far as getting approval from the NFL owners it's going to come down the money do you think the NFL owners are going to make more money in Buffalo or Toronto or Los Angeles with revenue sharing.

 

Sure it's all sad, we all see the decline in Western New York and it's not just Greater Buffalo its Jamestown, Olean,Dunkirk Salamanca, Wellsville. All those towns had an industrial base which is now all but gone.

 

Jamestown New York use to be the furniture capital of the United States. If you had Jamestown furniture that was the cat's meow. Point of fact, the chairs the US Supreme Court Judges used to sit on including Justice Robert Jackson from Frewsburg were made in Jamestown. Now about the only furniture they make is Bush computer desks you buy at Wal-Mart.

 

Until they find some New industry to replace those industrial Jobs in those core communities the downward spiral of Western New York will continue, and our children will leave WNY to find work in other states. If the jobs and people aren't here, why would the sports teams stay, if they could make more money in another part of the country.

Edited April 14, 2014 by oman128

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

It was my understanding that the Non-Relo was outside of the Maintenance Covevnants...can you ask one of the Darryls if that's the case?

Hey Bandit,

 

The Franchise Maintenance Covenants are in the Stadium Lease, which is a different document than the Non-Relocation Agreement. There is a separate link to each document in my post above.

 

Not sure if that answers your question.

 

When I have time, I'll post a further reply here explaining in more detail why Darryl thinks that the Non-Relocation Agreement doesn't survive past year 7 if the Bills exercise their year 7 option to terminate the Stadium Lease. It has to do with how specific phrases are defined in each of the two documents. But right now I gotta help both Darryls finish their taxes.

Edited April 14, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[mannc]

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find:

 

Stadium Lease:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf

 

Non-relocation Agreement:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf

 

The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts.

 

So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it:

 

 

 

Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years).

 

 

 

I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted.

 

It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

 

 

True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for.

 

 

The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020).

 

The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end.

 

Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it.

 

Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says.

Thank you. Your bro's analysis appears to be exactly right. I think this debate is closed. Now if only they would disclose the terms of Ralph's trust . . .

 

I think it's time to change the title of this thread.

Edited April 14, 2014 by mannc

[bbb]

It's going to be great when Jon Bon Jovi does hard time for trying to buy the Bills.

[BillnutinHouston]

Texas has a couple of locations with the ability to successfully handle a team.

Actually, no. San Antonio has the population but most of its residents are low wage. Austin is growing fast but is more of an amateur & college sports town. And both are solid, solid Cowboys markets that Jerry Jones would fight tooth and nail over.

 

Perhaps you're thinking of Lubbock?

Edited April 14, 2014 by BillnutinHouston

[dave mcbride]

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find:

 

Stadium Lease:

 

http://www2.erie.gov...greement123.pdf

 

Non-relocation Agreement:

 

http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf

 

The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts.

 

So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it:

 

 

 

Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years).

 

 

 

I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted.

 

It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

 

 

True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7.

Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for.

 

 

The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020).

 

The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end.

 

Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it.

 

Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says.

 

Thanks - very helpful.

[nucci]

Look, all we can do is fill the stadium every Sunday and hope that a local owner is found or at least an owner who respects the city and its fans. The fans of WNY supported this team through some of the most abysmal football on record. (I grew up in the 70's thinking we would never beat the fins.) The reason it is valued at close to 1B and didn't fold up long ago, are the BB fans. If the stadium is full and the area continues to support the team through merchandising, I don't think a new owner would gamble on moving a team for potential gain. Toronto, London, etc are major risks. LA has failed at least 2x in my memory. Get a stadium built (I like the option of the west side of Amherst) and there is no way this team moves.

It's because of the NFL and TV contracts......not the fans.

[Ronin]

If selling the team becomes hindered because of this anchor to keep the team in Buffalo, watch how fast they work something out to buy out that clause for relatively cheap.

 

Not to mention, grease a couple of key politicians to feign crying in their soup over what may be the inevitable anyway, and see how fast all this changes.

[BRH]

This whole thing reminds me of the old adage of the two swimmers being chased by a shark. You don't have to outrace the shark, you just have to outrace the other guy.

 

There are currently a bunch of other teams in a lot more danger of being bought and/or moved than this one. San Diego, St. Louis, Jacksonville, to name three.

 

By the time a buyer gets around to being able to move this team, there probably won't be any place left to move it. In other words, we're going to outrace the other guys.

[NoSaint]

This whole thing reminds me of the old adage of the two swimmers being chased by a shark. You don't have to outrace the shark, you just have to outrace the other guy.

 

There are currently a bunch of other teams in a lot more danger of being bought and/or moved than this one. San Diego, St. Louis, Jacksonville, to name three.

 

By the time a buyer gets around to being able to move this team, there probably won't be any place left to move it. In other words, we're going to outrace the other guys.

 

the only issue of course being toronto. we are the sole team in discussion for toronto.

 

honestly, ive said it several times - i bet the nfl doesnt hate having LA open, as its helped them strong arm a ton of cities in negotiations for tax payer funding towards stadiums.

[BRH]

the only issue of course being toronto. we are the sole team in discussion for toronto.

 

Except Toronto needs to build a new stadium and is much less likely/able to build one on spec than LA. The only way they build one is if they know someone will buy the Bills and commit to moving them, which is a much less likely prospect now. Can't build the stadium without a team, can't get the team if they don't have a stadium.

 

honestly, ive said it several times - i bet the nfl doesnt hate having LA open, as its helped them strong arm a ton of cities in negotiations for tax payer funding towards stadiums.

 

And as for LA - the only city, by the way, to lose not only two but THREE professional football teams - I think their time is coming, and sooner than 2020. There aren't many teams left out there without a new or renovated stadium, so now that that purpose has been served, the NFL can turn its attention to getting a team back into that market with a true Super Bowl-ready stadium. Once LA goes, what's left? London?