WEDG Report: Rogers meets with Cuomo & Bills

[thebandit27]

From the article the reasons for "highly unlikely":

 

 

 

This makes no sense. A court has to issue a order of specific performance. Since nobody has gone to court there is no order of specific performance.

 

 

 

While the county may have a case, the article assuming that a court would issue an order of specific performance seems to be a bridge to far.

 

Perhaps what Ganis is saying--and I'm not a lawyer so I'm guessing here and asking your opinion more than positing at this point--is that it's a specific performance clause as opposed to him expecting a judge to order specific performance, vis-a-vis: "Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute." (from your link).

 

In other words, the language in the league gives the County the right of possession in such a dispute.

 

Would you mind giving that some thought and providing feedback since you obviously have more law experience on your side than I do? My knowledge is relegated to construction-specific General Municipal Law in NYS.

Edited June 6, 2014 by thebandit27

[K-9]

Perhaps what Ganis is saying--and I'm not a lawyer so I'm guessing here and asking your opinion more than positing at this point--is that it's a specific performance clause as opposed to him expecting a judge to order specific performance, vis-a-vis: "Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute." (from your link).

 

In other words, the language in the league gives the County the right of possession in such a dispute.

 

Would you mind giving that some thought and providing feedback since you obviously have more law experience on your side than I do? My knowledge is relegated to construction-specific General Municipal Law in NYS.

 

With a specialty in subaqueous construction applications.

 

I'd be interested in knowing if there is precedent for needing a 3/4 vote of approval from the voting trustees on the sale. This point is huge in my mind as it seems to render the idea of "highest bidder" diminished. It seems "highest bidder with the necessary 3/4 vote" is more appropriate. And that tells me Mr. Wilson anticipated the need for discretion in the matter.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Punch]

Here is a link to where they were discussing it.

 

http://stationcaster.com/stations/wedg/media/mp3/PFT_s_Mike_Florio_w__Shredd___Ragan___-1402069224.mp3

 

It's clear that the OP is correct in everything he heard on the Edge... now, is what Shredd and Ragan saying about this alleged meeting actually true?

[Kelly the Dog]

you think you've got it tough. try being me.

 

jw

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

It's clear that the OP is correct in everything he heard on the Edge... now, is what Shredd and Ragan saying about this alleged meeting actually true?

The radio guys are just flat wrong about the lease. You can't just pay the $400. You have to go to court.

[Punch]

The radio guys are just flat wrong about the lease. You can't just pay the $400. You have to go to court.

 

Yes, that's wrong, but they suggested a meeting did take place according to "sources". It sounds fishy.

[Greg F]

Perhaps what Ganis is saying--and I'm not a lawyer so I'm guessing here and asking your opinion more than positing at this point--is that it's a specific performance clause as opposed to him expecting a judge to order specific performance...

 

I think the journalist mangled the story. All the specific performance clause's in the contract are simply acknowledging that an order of specific performance is something the county/state/ECSC could seek in relief upon default by the Bills.

 

The County, the State and/or the ECSC shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief prohibiting action, directly or indirectly, by the Bills that causes or would reasonably be expected to cause a Non-Relocation Default, or mandating action that averts or will avert a Non-Relocation Default, or enforcing any covenant, duty or obligation of the Bills through specific performance.

 

Upon a Non-Relocation Default, if injunctive relief or specific performance as provided in Section 5(a) is not granted or available ...

 

Therefore, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there exists no adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce this Agreement against the Bills, and that equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement notwithstanding the provisions for liquidated damages provided elsewhere in this Section 5.

 

A court would have to issue an order of specific performance.

 

"Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute." (from your link).

 

That was an example for a real estate transaction.

In the law of remedies, an order of specific performance is an order of the court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract.

In this case an order of specific performance would force the Bills to abide by the terms of the Non-Relocation agreement. IOW, the Bills would have to play their home games at RWS.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

 

The radio guys are just flat wrong about the lease. You can't just pay the $400. You have to go to court.

 

Actually, I believe, they could just move the team thus breaking their Non-Relocation agreement and pay the 400 million dollars, couldn't they?

Edited June 6, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, that's wrong, but they suggested a meeting did take place according to "sources". It sounds fishy.

If you listen closely to what they said, the ALLEGED meeting was a general breakfast meeting with a lot of people there, and not just Rodgers, Schumer, Cuomo and a member of the Bills.

 

Actually, I believe, they could just move the team thus breaking their Non-Relocation agreement and pay the 400 million dollars, couldn't they?

Then they could go to jail.

[BillnutinHouston]

The league should consider offering a new franchise to Toronto if there is such a demand for NFL football there. Not likely to put much of a dent in the Bills fan base.

The new Bills owners might disagree with your second statement. And that's understating it to the extreme.

[Kelly the Dog]

I believe the $400 million is payable if you win a virtually unwinable court case.

[K-9]

I believe the $400 million is payable if you win a virtually unwinable court case.

 

That's correct. You first have to spend hundreds of millions in litigation costs, go to court and win the case, all for the privilege of then paying $400m to Erie County.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Then they could go to jail.

Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.

[May Day 10]

I think the biggest issue is:

 

Will the NFL want this. Approving an owner swooping in to buy, announcing the team is leaving just after the public spends $130 million or whatever in stadium improvements (bad business). Especially when all reports from WNY appear favorable and open to a new stadium. Then what will be a public court battle which would likely drag on, providing everyone in WNY every opportunity to be heard and seen. Thats a bad look. The NFL cares greatly about its image.

[Kelly the Dog]

Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.

See the stuff above. They cannot just pay the $400m. They have to go to court, WIN the unwinable case, and THEN are able to pay the $400 million to get out of the lease.

 

I think the biggest issue is:

 

Will the NFL want this. Approving an owner swooping in to buy, announcing the team is leaving just after the public spends $130 million or whatever in stadium improvements (bad business). Especially when all reports from WNY appear favorable and open to a new stadium. Then what will be a public court battle which would likely drag on, providing everyone in WNY every opportunity to be heard and seen. Thats a bad look. The NFL cares greatly about its image.

It's absolutely unimaginable that the NFL would let a new owner swoop in, buy the Bills and move the team in a year, thereby breaking the lease.

[May Day 10]

you would think the NFL's plan/hope was Mr Wilson passing closer to the end of the lease. They would have easily sold to MLSE, etc with their new stadium all planned and ready to go, with the whole cover story that Buffalo isnt losing a team and its only an hour away. It would have been quick and we would be silenced. The NFL world would forget about Buffalo in less than a season.

[What a Tuel]

Not to mention even if the $400 million buyout existed, people act as if it is the same as paying 1 billion for the team. No it isn't. When you pay 1 billion for the team, you are making a 1 billion dollar investment that will make you money over the years and will likely sell for $1 billion + when you want to cash it in. When you pay a $400 million penalty, you are not making an investment, you are losing that money. It is gone forever. Completely different uses of money.

 

Sure a billionaire may be able to say, meh $400 million? Heres a check. But it is unlikely they would just throw money away like that. It doesn't even exist though so it is irrelevant.

 

Also the Shredd and Reagan audio just sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. Could Rogers Reps have been arguing about the canceled Toronto Series?

Edited June 6, 2014 by What a Tuel

[K-9]

Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.

 

It's possible if a new owner attempts to move the team in violation of an injunction that prevents that. It's highly unlikely as a fine would be imposed, but jail time is possible is a new owner refuses to pay it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

Not to mention even if the $400 million buyout existed, people act as if it is the same as paying 1 billion for the team. No it isn't. When you pay 1 billion for the team, you are making a 1 billion dollar investment that will make you money of the years and will likely sell for $1 billion + when they want to cash it in. When you pay a $400 million penalty, you are not making an investment, you are losing that money.

 

Sure a billionaire may be able to say, meh $400 million? Heres a check. But it is unlikely they would just throw money away like that. It doesn't even exist though so it is irrelevant.

And that doesn't count the relocation fee, which could be hundreds of millions and falls into that same category.

[K-9]

And that doesn't count the relocation fee, which could be hundreds of millions and falls into that same category.

 

Or the court costs incurred.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Lurker]

ALLEGED meeting

It's all bupkis. Cuomo's visits are always highly scripted and there's no way he had a breakfast where the Rogers folks were invited. Andy was in town to announce the 8 companies that were selected for the Tax Free New York program and had zero interest in doing anything Bills-related on the same day.

 

If you listen to scumbag Florio, he hedges all over the place whenever the 'meeting' is mentioned.