Report: agreement forbids sale to an owner who would relocate

[Kirby Jackson]

No. He did say this was the case a long time ago and some folks treated him like someone who had no real info. He deserves his props.

Anytime that he has brought anything to the table he then follows by asking everyone to pat him on the back. That's why everyone thinks that the guy is a joke despite the fact he has had some decent info. Until he can get over his attention seeking ways he will never be taken seriously as a journalist. Edited April 29, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[purple haze]

Anytime that he has brought anything to the table he then follows by asking everyone to pat him on the back. That's why everyone thinks that the guy is a joke despite the fact he has had some decent info. Until he can get over his attention seeking ways he will never be taken seriously as a journalist.

 

I hear you. I think it's more of a case of a person without the pedigree trying to get credit for what he does report and getting his name out there. But I can see how some can take it the wrong way. A lot of bloggers use info from other sources and don't always give credit or do it in a timely fashion. It's a competitive biz. Even moreso if you have no rep.

[Kirby Jackson]

One more thing, could Tim Graham being doing a worse job on this story? He is just arguing with people now about the distance between Buffalo and Toronto. He clearly hasn't read or familiarized himself with the lease and he is getting crushed on twitter. You would think that someone with his job might have taken some time to learn the ins and outs of the most important document in franchise history. He has been an abomination tonight.

[Rocky Landing]

This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term.

 

Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.

[Kirby Jackson]

This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term.

 

Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.

Obviously someone can move the team after the agreement is up. No one is going to buy the team and sit on them for 9 years and then move them. LA will almost certainly be occupied by that point. In addition there could/should be plans in place for a new stadium in WNY. The state will play a larger role in keeping the team IMO. There will be certain inducements in place to make WNY the preferred destination if necessary.

 

Aside: I would look to the most recent deal that the Saints signed with the state of Louisiana as a creative way to incentivize the team. This could come hand and hand with the new stadium.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[KollegeStudnet]

Well, Go Bills!

[jrb2590]

One more thing, could Tim Graham being doing a worse job on this story? He is just arguing with people now about the distance between Buffalo and Toronto. He clearly hasn't read or familiarized himself with the lease and he is getting crushed on twitter. You would think that someone with his job might have taken some time to learn the ins and outs of the most important document in franchise history. He has been an abomination tonight.

 

Tim graham is a poindexter prick. He spits out stuff and when people respond with correct information he ignores them, but as soon as someone makes a mistake or says something he doesn't like he'll be sure to post it all over twitter to embarrass the person and then continue on with whatever pointless rant he is on. I believe the sole reason for his twitter is to put other people down because it makes him feel better about himself. The other night he made fun of someones child on twitter. didn't know the guy, and sure the guy made a comment he didn't like, but tim looked at the mans profile picture that was of him and his child, and said something to the effect of 'your child is only slightly less ugly than you are". completely unrelated to anything. then when people called him out on it, he deleted the tweet and says he apologizes only because he spelled slightly wrong in that tweet. This guy is a professional? calling a mans innocent son ugly? what a loser

[sodbuster]

 

 

Tim graham is a poindexter prick. He spits out stuff and when people respond with correct information he ignores them, but as soon as someone makes a mistake or says something he doesn't like he'll be sure to post it all over twitter to embarrass the person and then continue on with whatever pointless rant he is on. I believe the sole reason for his twitter is to put other people down because it makes him feel better about himself. The other night he made fun of someones child on twitter. didn't know the guy, and sure the guy made a comment he didn't like, but tim looked at the mans profile picture that was of him and his child, and said something to the effect of 'your child is only slightly less ugly than you are". completely unrelated to anything. then when people called him out on it, he deleted the tweet and says he apologizes only because he spelled slightly wrong in that tweet. This guy is a professional? calling a mans innocent son ugly? what a loser

He is the perfect blend of a thick skull and thin skin. Edited April 29, 2014 by sodbuster

[basskik11]

Just saw this. Hope it is true!

[hondo in seattle]

This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term.

 

Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.

 

In other words, nothing new here. We already know that the team couldn't be moved during the length of the lease. Thanks for clarifying.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Most people on TBD will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the Non-Relocation Agreement and stadium lease actually say. If anybody actually cares what the Non-Relocation Agreement actually says, here's my brother Darryl's analysis:

 

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

 

The relevant language is in Section 3(b) -- I deleted extraneous language for clarity (full text is in the link):

 

" . . . during the Non-Relocation Term . . . the Bills shall not: (i) . . . (ii) . . . attempt to . . . move the Team except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph . . . (iii) sell . . . or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills' knowledge, has an intention to . . . move the Team during the Non- Relocation Term . . . (iv) (A) . . . (B) . . . © . . . (D) otherwise attempt to cause the playing of Games at a location other than the Stadium except . . . (y) to the extent that the relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term; (v) . . . or (vi) enter into any . . . agreement to . . . transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills' knowledge, intends to . . . move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium."

 

That's still a lot of verbiage, even with extraneous language deleted, but here's the key part - - the phrase "except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph" clearly shows that there are some circumstances in which "clause (iv)" allows the Bills to attempt to move the Team. So what are those circumstances? Per "clause (iv)," it's when the "relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term."

 

Note that the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" is capitalized. That's not a random grammatical error. Initial caps were used because the exact phrase "Non-Relocation Term" has a precise meaning defined in an earlier part of the Non-Relocation Agreement.

 

Here's how paragraph 1® defines the phrase "Non-Relocation Term:"

 

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

 

So the "Non-Relocation Term" doesn't end until the "Stadium Lease Expiration Date." That sounds good, right? The new stadium lease runs for 10 years and doesn't expire until 2023. But there's a problem - - the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" is also capitalized, and if you go back to the definitions section, you find that paragraph 1(y) defines the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" as follows:

 

(y) Stadium Lease Expiration Date: July 31, 2023, or such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire.

 

So if you plug the definition of the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" found in paragraph 1(y) into the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" found in paragraph 1®, the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" becomes:

 

® Non-Relocation Term: The term of this Agreement, beginning on July 31, 2013, and ending on July 31, 2023, or such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire.

 

See the problem? The Non-Relocation Term doesn't necessarily end on July, 31, 2023 - - it could also end on "such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire."

 

The language used in the Non-Relocation Agreement makes the "Non-Relocation Term" end whenever the stadium lease ends. If the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the stadium lease and the "Non-Relocation Term" both end on July 31, 2020.

 

That's important, because paragraph 3(b)(iv)(y) of the Non-Relocation Agreement allows the team to discuss relocation at any time so long as the relocation would actually take place after the "Non-Relocation Term" ends.

 

I realize that the above analysis involves long and tedious reading of a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but this type of analysis of specifically defined terms is what lawyers and judges will do when they are trying to figure out exactly what conduct is prohibited by the Non-Relocation Agreement.

 

Bottom line is that any move that would actually happen after the stadium lease ends (whether it ends by expiration of the full 10 year term or ends by the team exercising it's option to terminate the lease after 7 years), can be discussed by the Bills today.

 

I realize this conclusion contradicts some media reports, as well as the John Kryk blog that the OP linked to. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, portions of the media reports and portions of John Kryk's blog piece are wrong.

 

It's true that the Non-Relocation Agreement prevents the team from being sold to anyone who, to the Bills knowledge, intends to actually move the team while the stadium lease is in force. But the Non-Relocation Agreement does not prevent anyone from moving the team anywhere after the lease either (1) expires in 2023, or (2) is terminated by the Bills in 2020 (if whoever owns the team then follows the termination procedure spelled out in the stadium lease).

 

So the team is pretty well locked in to playing games at the Ralph for 6 more years, not 9.

Edited April 29, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[White Linen]

sWhoever buys in the team is going to have money. Money is power and money walks. BS doesn't. Enough money would get the Bills moved

 

Enough money can keep them in Buffalo too.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Triple Threat

[BillnutinHouston]

Say it with me folks: thank you Ralph!

[HamSandwhich]

If the agreement is this thorough do you think that the state and county would overlook the Toronto threat? I am sure that there is language in there strictly to protect them from TO.

 

I mean, I know that we gave him a key to the city, but I don't think he would give it to a Toronto big wig to bring the Bills there. Hasn't Owens been through enough in his career?

[GunnerBill]

Guys, those urging caution are right to do so. As I've said in another thread contract law deals with few certainties. You can always break a contract and the other party always has a remedy, but that remedy is almost always purely financial and as has been said anyone who buys the Bills is going to have to have big money to start with.

 

But what I think you have to take from this is that it is yet another factor that is likely to increase the chances of the Bills being sold to a group who wants the team to stay in Buffalo. It also confirms that was Ralph's wish and I'm sure Mary Wilson will take her late husband's wishes very seriously. I'm 75% sure the Bills will be staying in Buffalo not just short term, but long term, under new ownership committed to the area. And before Ralph's death and the new that has gradually come out since then I was at best 50/50.

 

It looks positive guys. Cautious optimism is the right tone.

[TSNBDSC]

Wet blanket chimes in

 

 

@ByTimGraham: Toronto is within 90 miles of Buffalo and considered Buffalo's NFL territory. Moving the team there might not be considered relocation.

 

Fast tracked local owner in place. Sign, sealed, soon to be delivered. They're stayin

[Punch]

 

 

Fast tracked local owner in place. Sign, sealed, soon to be delivered. They're stayin

 

Please elaborate as best you can. At the very least: do you have "inside info" that this is the case even if you can't reveal specifics? Thanks.

[TSNBDSC]

Please elaborate as best you can. At the very least: do you have "inside info" that this is the case even if you can't reveal specifics? Thanks.

 

Wish I could. Be positive

Edited April 29, 2014 by tsnbd

[todd]

No. Erie county is in control, and do you think Erie would let that happen?

 

Wet blanket chimes in

 

 

@ByTimGraham: Toronto is within 90 miles of Buffalo and considered Buffalo's NFL territory. Moving the team there might not be considered relocation.

[Mr. WEO]

In other words, nothing new here. We already know that the team couldn't be moved during the length of the lease. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I agree. Not sure how this is a new finding for the public. Nothing can prevent the team being sold to someone who is just going to wait until the end of the lease to move the team.

 

No news here.