bbb Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 yep. it's shocking how ignorance to facts has become chic these days. jw Thanks for all the info. Enjoin your evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 While the non-relocation clause is clear to me, national media and some local media continue to write and report the lease incorrectly, they call it "cost of relocation", "buyout" and/or "penalty"; as though breaking the lease is an OPTION a new owner has -- I think that creates a TON of confusion with a lot of people --- hard to hear one thing on these threads and then read the opposite - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 While the non-relocation clause is clear to me, national media and some local media continue to write and report the lease incorrectly, they call it "cost of relocation", "buyout" and/or "penalty"; as though breaking the lease is an OPTION a new owner has -- I think that creates a TON of confusion with a lot of people --- hard to hear one thing on these threads and then read the opposite - I guess my problem with that is that the documents are public records. If someone wishes to be informed they need only use Google and read up. IMO too few are the willing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 But what if they just buyout the lease? Ever consider that? And what is that lease is really just a well disguised pit in the road. Would you jump in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 the state is as much a part of the lease agreement as Erie County. and i have no clue what you mean by "enjoin." jw it won't happen. gawd. jw please stop posting on this topic. please. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. the NFL won't have an opportunity to approve Rogers until after a court case over the non-relocation clause. any NFL approval would HAVE to become AFTER the court case. and the NFL would certainly have a vested interested in the court case because it doesn't exactly enjoy the negative publicity that could potentially come out of the case. the process would be extensively delayed, which wouldn't do any good to the NFL or Wilson's estate. the uncertainty the court case would generate wouldn't be good for anyone either. and the NFL would certainly be leery of anyone in the case attempting to pry open its private books. the threat of a court case almost certainly prevents anyone from going after the team with the intention of relocating it before 2020. and it certainly rules out anyone who has publicly mentioned an intent of wanting to relocate the team at all. and anyone seeking relocation of the franchise would require two separate votes. one regarding ownership, the second would be a separate one regarding relocation. i don't know how else to make myself clear here except to reiterate that: IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. jw where's the bash-head emoticon? really, where is it? a prospective buyer doesn't not merely have the right to plunk down $400 million and wash his hands of the Bills in Buffalo. it's NOT a buyout. it's a last-resource penalty. jw :wallbash: :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 :wallbash: :wallbash: Get that man a helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Slow day news-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) The NFL would fold in one minute for fear of a lawsuit from a Canadian group that bought the Bills. They'd let them trample the lease and everything else and Jerry Jones will be leading the charge. A lawsuit on what grounds? Edited June 9, 2014 by purple haze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 A lawsuit on what grounds? y'know, cause of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 :wallbash: :wallbash: multiple concussion syndrome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 y'know, cause of money. and stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Is this still a thread? Is there any actual reputable news outlets reporting this? CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Agree --- but it's even more outrageous that the national media isn't doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 All of this could have been avoided if Ralph would have sold a portion of the team to the next owner. Say what you want about Modell, but that's what he did in Baltimore. Ralph could have chosen his next owner, sold them 49% a couple of years ago and then would have the sale completed upon his death. Instead, he left us with this mess. Sure, he put provisions in place so that it would be DIFFICULT to move the team, but not IMPOSSIBLE. And with $Billions at stake, it is likely that we will see more than a few predators attempt to buy this club with the intention of moving them. I know I'm going to get roasted for this. That's fine. But IF it turns out that someone buys the club and moves them, it will be because Ralph left the door open for that to happen. Knowing that I'm going to get roasted, let me save you the trouble: You idiot. Ralph did everything he could to keep them here. It's not his fault that a group from Toronto overpaid for the team. How was he supposed to know that someone would willingly pay the $400 million to move the club? Right. Because Ralph had NO IDEA that that people like the Roger's family would pay whatever it took to get an NFL team in Toronto. He had NO IDEA that there is literally a lineup of billionaires who have dreamt of owning an NFL team. He had NO IDEA that an overpayment for the Bills plus a $400 million penalty might actually be CHEAPER than getting an expansion franchise, if that option ever presents itself. You idiot. Ralph did everything he could to keep the team in Buffalo. It's not his fault that nobody from Buffalo could compete with the offers from other regions! Right. Because Ralph was completely unaware that a franchise in Buffalo would be worth less than a franchise in Toronto or LA. He knew that this discrepancy would do NOTHING to the bidding process on the club. You idiot. Ralph had no choice but to sell the team to the highest bidder after his death. Right. Because this process is the way that every other owner of a sports franchise has taken. Oh wait. NO IT'S NOT!!! There have been dozens and dozens of cases where an elderly owner had to worry about capital gains and estate taxes and STILL found a way to sell their franchise in a different way. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. THIS PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO DRIVE UP THE VALUE OF THE FRANCHISE, SUBSTANTIALLY. It will do one of two things, drive up the price to the point where nobody in Buffalo can afford to match it, or drive up the price to the point where the new Buffalo owner will be forced to overpay and put the club under financial strain right from day one. You idiot. The other owners still need to approve the move. They would NEVER approve a move to a city like Toronto! Right. Because all of the extra revenue that would come to the league by being in a market with 6 times the population, 10 times the corporate support and the potential for HUGE television contracts will have no appeal to the other owners. Do you think Bob Kraft will give two sh*ts about the blood on his hands by approving a move when he sees how much more money he and the other owners would make? Good grief. Sorry to be a jerk, but I'm pissed off. We shouldn't be having these conversations. Billionaires got to be billionaires because they are opportunistic and have figured out ways to get deals done that were tricky and full of challenges. In order to keep these predators out of this process, Ralph needed to make it AIR TIGHT. The only way to do that was to choose an owner before he died and sell off a portion before opening the door for this mess. Again, I know I'm going to get roasted for this. But I needed to say it. I love the Bills and even though I don't live in Buffalo, it would break my heart to see them move. It would be a tragedy and the thought of it makes me physically sick. I am not saying that the Bills WILL move. Not at all. But I'm saying that Ralph has left that door ajar and that in itself is inexcusable, in my opinion. Go Bills I am going to get roasted for this, but what is the succession plan for TBD? SDS is not a young buck anymore. SDS has left that door ajar and that in itself is inexcusable, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 it won't happen. gawd. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. IT'S NOT A BUYOUT. the NFL won't have an opportunity to approve Rogers until after a court case over the non-relocation clause. any NFL approval would HAVE to become AFTER the court case. it's NOT a buyout. it's a last-resource penalty. jw I think everyone understands its not a buyout. They believe a new owner(intent on moving the team) would move the team(break the lease/non-relocation by doing so, before a court case) and deal with the legal aftermath once a case was filed. While I believe it would not happen because the NFL would not approve any move, why would the NFL have to wait to approve a move? They could do it before the actual move took place(in reality they most like would not), correct? Also the statement that the moving vans would be stopped makes the assumption a new owner wants to move anything other than personnel. Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no? Again, not sure if any of this is realistic just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I am going to get roasted for this, but what is the succession plan for TBD? SDS is not a young buck anymore. SDS has left that door ajar and that in itself is inexcusable, in my opinion. It will be sold to the highest bidder. Jon Bon Jovi is already posting to get a feel for the culture of the board but I won't reveal his screen name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I think everyone understands its not a buyout. They believe a new owner(intent on moving the team) would move the team(break the lease/non-relocation by doing so, before a court case) and deal with the legal aftermath once a case was filed. While I believe it would not happen because the NFL would not approve any move, why would the NFL have to wait to approve a move? They could do it before the actual move took place(in reality they most like would not), correct? Also the statement that the moving vans would be stopped makes the assumption a new owner wants to move anything other than personnel. Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no? Again, not sure if any of this is realistic just curious. If you think about they won't be able to get moving vans over the border. But really, if you are spending that much money leave all the old Bills gear and just buy new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If you think about they won't be able to get moving vans over the border. But really, if you are spending that much money leave all the old Bills gear and just buy new. Well theoretically , they could play their last away game and say "We are not coming back"(while bringing their home and away gear), thus allowing them to have their gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Well theoretically , they could play their last away game and say "We are not coming back"(while bringing their home and away gear), thus allowing them to have their gear. All the money in the world isn't going to buy your way out of a violation of a court injunction against moving, which would take all of 5 minutes to obtain. Moving vans wouldn't get past Abbott and Big Tree. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Not arguing with you, but I am curious why you think an injunction would be so easy to obtain. Because language in the lease gives the county and state the express right to seek the injunction and they are frequently granted expeditiously when haste is required. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/under-lease-court-could-bar-any-new-owner-from-moving-buffalo-bills-20140412 GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts