yall Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The more I read and hear about this, the more confused I get. BTW Mike Florio is a lawyer, here is his take: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 54m Latest newly-discovered clause in Bills lease doesn't change anything about the team's long-term status http://wp.me/p14QSB-9tak Note "long term status". Someone could move the team after the lease expires. Maybe someone buys the team with the intent of keeping them here, but in 2025 decides "screw it, I can make more in LA". That's a simplistic take, but I think that's what's meant by long term, at least in this specific inrpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The more I read and hear about this, the more confused I get. BTW Mike Florio is a lawyer, here is his take: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 54m Latest newly-discovered clause in Bills lease doesn't change anything about the team's long-term status http://wp.me/p14QSB-9tak I agree with Florio: As a result, the latest newly-discovered clause changes nothing. The Bills won’t be leaving until 2020 at the very earliest. More likely, it will happen at some point after the current lease expires. Unless in the interim there’s a new lease or a new stadium. This Canadian dude's article tells us nothing new at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Lawyers aren't magic and they can't just make an ironclad lease go away. This guy has watched way too much TV. I am not being a dick but do you know anything about law? There is no such thing as Iron clad period. This lease is there just to scare away any weak minded owners who don't have enough cash or time or 'want to' to fight it. ANY lease can be broken period. Look reality is two parts here, 1) the team isn't going anywhere. Too many want to keep it in Buffalo that would buy it like Trump. 2) all that language in the lease is pure bull ****. I will try to explain this one last time, a great attorney / Lawfirm can get this team moved in 2 years tops. Any owner with the money can move the team and not blink at potential 400 mill in punitive damages. But as I said its all moot as worst case scenario Trump buys the Bills (best case IHMO) and they aren't going anywhere. I just wish to God this damn thing would sell all ready so the issue is put to rest and we can just talk football. Edited April 29, 2014 by Kellyto83TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I am not being a dick but do you know anything about law? There is no such thing as Iron clad period. This lease is there just to scare away any weak minded owners who don't have enough cash or time or 'want to' to fight it. ANY lease can be broken period. Look reality is two parts here, 1) the team isn't going anywhere. Too many want to keep it in Buffalo that would buy it like Trump. 2) all that language in the lease is pure bull ****. I will try to explain this one last time, a great attorney / Lawfirm can get this team moved in 2 years tops. Any owner with the money can move the team and not blink at potential 400 mill in punitive damages. But as I said its all moot as worst case scenario Trump buys the Bills (best case IHMO) and they aren't going anywhere. I just wish to God this damn thing would sell all ready so the issue is put to rest and we can just talk football. How did your two lawyer friends say it could be broken. I'm just curious. How would they attack the contract? On what basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The more I read and hear about this, the more confused I get. BTW Mike Florio is a lawyer, here is his take: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 54m Latest newly-discovered clause in Bills lease doesn't change anything about the team's long-term status http://wp.me/p14QSB-9tak The bottom line is, go or stay, in 2020, or earlier, or later, or stay in Buffalo forever, none of us have any control over that. Simply enjoy having the team in Buffalo for however long it is here. Carpe diem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voodoo poonani Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Only for the terms of the lease agreement. After 2019 or 2022 they're gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I am not being a dick but do you know anything about law? There is no such thing as Iron clad period. This lease is there just to scare away any weak minded owners who don't have enough cash or time or 'want to' to fight it. ANY lease can be broken period. Look reality is two parts here, 1) the team isn't going anywhere. Too many want to keep it in Buffalo that would buy it like Trump. 2) all that language in the lease is pure bull ****. I will try to explain this one last time, a great attorney / Lawfirm can get this team moved in 2 years tops. Any owner with the money can move the team and not blink at potential 400 mill in punitive damages. But as I said its all moot as worst case scenario Trump buys the Bills (best case IHMO) and they aren't going anywhere. I just wish to God this damn thing would sell all ready so the issue is put to rest and we can just talk football. Okay, I'm going to need an explanation here, since the language is pretty clear... I'm paraphrasing, but the Non-Relo states clearly that the two sides (Team and County) agree that the team moving out of Erie County would represent "irreparable harm" to the County and be grounds for an injunction. It also states that--should the Team somehow prevail in court, and procure a decision that says that the two sides did not agree that moving out of Erie County would represent "irreparable harm" to the County and be grounds for an injunction (which they did, undeniably, by signing the lease and the Non-Relo)--the Team would be on the hook for the $400M in liquidated damages. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I did used to interpret NYS General Municipal Law for construction contracts, so I have some understanding of this stuff...can you please explain how a great attorney can win that case? Only for the terms of the lease agreement. After 2019 or 2022 they're gone. Based on what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) 4/29 Mark Poloncarz talks lease on WGR <21:12> Edited April 29, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voodoo poonani Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Based on what? http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo-bills-opinion/2014/4/29/5664020/clarifying-language-in-the-buffalo-bills-relocation-agreement Not that there is any decision that they're already gone, but greed typically wins out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The more I read and hear about this, the more confused I get. BTW Mike Florio is a lawyer, here is his take: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 54m Latest newly-discovered clause in Bills lease doesn't change anything about the team's long-term status http://wp.me/p14QSB-9tak Florio says in the linked article: "Without access to a full copy of the full lease, it’s impossible to know whether the team can be sold to someone who intends to relocate in compliance with the terms of the agreement." In other words, he has not read it despite the fact it is readily available on the Erie County Govt. website: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/index.php?q=buffalo-bills-stadium-lease His commentary is based on a reading of Kryk's article, only, although his conclusions are not necessarily wrong or unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Focus on the LONG TERM (2023 and beyond). That is the real issue. The lease / non-relocation agreement prevents a move before that time. We need to be vigilant on ensuring the new owner has DEEP roots and wants to keep team in Buffalo for 40+ years. I'm focused on understanding the SALE PROCESS and who gets to decide who buys the team. That to me, if the real issue. Edited April 29, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Focus on the LONG TERM (2023 and beyond). That is the real issue. The lease / non-relocation agreement prevents a move before that time. We need to be vigilant on ensuring the new owner has DEEP roots and wants to keep team in Buffalo for 40+ years. I'm focused on understanding the SALE PROCESS and who gets to decide who buys the team. That to me, if the real issue. I'm curious, what role do you think "we" play in selecting a new owner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 4/29 John Kryk of the Toronto Sun talks bills future <13:10> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So the team is pretty well locked in to playing games at the Ralph for 6 more years, not 9. Yup, it also doesn't help that people use the Non Relocation agreement as the reference document, and not the actual lease. But the basics haven't changed. Bills & new owner will have an out on July 30, 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 http://www.buffaloru...ation-agreement Not that there is any decision that they're already gone, but greed typically wins out. Thanks for providing your reasoning. My opinion is that even if that were true, which is a whole different debate, we're not talking about a windfall of money for the owner that moves them to LA, Toronto, or anywhere else. Let's just look at it real quick: Expenses Team purchase - $1.1B (conservatively, could certainly be more) NFL Relocation Fee - $250M (again could easily be more) New stadium funding - $600M (just assuming 40% of a $1.5B stadium with the rest from public subsidies) So without factoring in any other costs, we're already at $2B minimum to move the team. That's not an easy amount of money to re-coup in any market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Even without this clause I would expect the Toronto-based group to lie and say the Bills are staying. They want to sell tickets for the next 5 years, right? That will buy them time to build a new stadium in Toronto. It's up to us, the fans, to read between the lines and not buy into this propaganda. We need to stage public demonstrations and marches and let everyone know that this is our team and they aren't taking it without a fight! If we are on the front page of newspapers and on espn burning Bon Jovi records then these guys won't even want to put in a bid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Okay, I'm going to need an explanation here, since the language is pretty clear... I'm paraphrasing, but the Non-Relo states clearly that the two sides (Team and County) agree that the team moving out of Erie County would represent "irreparable harm" to the County and be grounds for an injunction. It also states that--should the Team somehow prevail in court, and procure a decision that says that the two sides did not agree that moving out of Erie County would represent "irreparable harm" to the County and be grounds for an injunction (which they did, undeniably, by signing the lease and the Non-Relo)--the Team would be on the hook for the $400M in liquidated damages. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I did used to interpret NYS General Municipal Law for construction contracts, so I have some understanding of this stuff...can you please explain how a great attorney can win that case? Based on what? Don't forget about the state appointed committee also. If any of these organizations feel the Bills are even talking to a ownership group indicating a possibility of a move they can file an injuction/take court action. The groups can also name their appropriate compensation/remedy for these actions and if the groups or court fail to remedy this then the $400 million kicks in. The team has to play their games at the Ralph through the terms of the lease unless all these groups, with the NFL and potential new owner(s), can agree on an alternative course of action. That's what I get from reading sections 2 and 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Thanks for providing your reasoning. My opinion is that even if that were true, which is a whole different debate, we're not talking about a windfall of money for the owner that moves them to LA, Toronto, or anywhere else. Let's just look at it real quick: Expenses Team purchase - $1.1B (conservatively, could certainly be more) NFL Relocation Fee - $250M (again could easily be more) New stadium funding - $600M (just assuming 40% of a $1.5B stadium with the rest from public subsidies) So without factoring in any other costs, we're already at $2B minimum to move the team. That's not an easy amount of money to re-coup in any market. Add to the bolded, only $200 million of the team purchased can be financed per NFL rules. That's a lot of cash to come up with... which Snyder struggled to do with the Skins'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I am not being a dick but do you know anything about law? There is no such thing as Iron clad period. This lease is there just to scare away any weak minded owners who don't have enough cash or time or 'want to' to fight it. ANY lease can be broken period. Look reality is two parts here, 1) the team isn't going anywhere. Too many want to keep it in Buffalo that would buy it like Trump. 2) all that language in the lease is pure bull ****. I will try to explain this one last time, a great attorney / Lawfirm can get this team moved in 2 years tops. Any owner with the money can move the team and not blink at potential 400 mill in punitive damages. But as I said its all moot as worst case scenario Trump buys the Bills (best case IHMO) and they aren't going anywhere. I just wish to God this damn thing would sell all ready so the issue is put to rest and we can just talk football. It seems I know more about law than you do. All that language in the lease being pure bull ****? The Buffalo Bills signed the lease and agreed to the terms, so they have to abide by them. You are the only person saying that it would be easy for the new owner to break the lease, while every professional interviewed says otherwise. Try signing a lease for an apartment and then decide you don't want to pay for it. Yes, there is a chance you could win your case, but 99/100 you will lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mousetrap08 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I would like to know where Tim Graham got his law degree. He seems to know more than the expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts