Captain Caveman Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 He's asking if the meeting between Schumer/Cuomo/Rogers happened...and no, there's no evidence that it did He could have been referring to either the Schumer / Rogers conversation or the radio conversation, but in any case he asked for the audio clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 After reviewing Section 6.4 of the lease, it seems that what Ganis is referring to is specific performance as defined in the actual lease agreement: http://www2.erie.gov...greement123.pdf Also I think Section 5 of the Non-Relocation Agreement plays into the discussion: http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf (paraphrasing)... Additionally, based on the foregoing, the Bills hereby agree as follows: (ii) That obligations are being incurred to make the Stadium available for Games during the term of the 2013 Stadium Lease and that any Non-Relocation Default shall constitute irreparable harm to the County, the ECSC and the State for which monetary damages or other remedies at law will not be an adequate remedy. I think that's the operative language on which Ganis bases his conclusions I am reluctant to take at face value anything that passes through the brain of a journalist. And i speak from experience. What Ganis actually said in context may be quite different than what is conveyed in the article. An order of specific performance can only be issued by a court. Item ii that you cite is exactly the reasoning a court would use to issue a order of specific performance. The problem is a court would first have to determine if item ii is indeed accurate and true which no court has done yet. That is why there are contingencies in the contract such as: Upon a Non-Relocation Default, if injunctive relief or specific performance as provided in Section 5(a) is not granted or available to either the County, the ECSC or the State, liquidated damages shall be paid by the Bills ... IOW, Only a court can issue an injuction or order of specific performance and the above is acknowledging that fact. What the above says if the court doesn't grant an injunction or order of specific performance then the $400 million payment kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 He likes his chances in court because he will win. That said if he offers 2 billion to the trust and they take a 1 billion offer to someone just because they want to keep it in Buffalo he can sue as well. On what grounds? Unless he is trying to say its because he is part of a protected class, ie, race, sex, sex orientation, etc and they didn't sell to him because of one of those illegal reasons he has no chance at winning that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Sorry... but why would Rodgers even meet with Schumer and Cuomo. They wouldn't give him the time of day. They probably bought lunch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Howdy ICanSleepWhenI'mDead, Most of your comments are spot on, but technically there's a difference between (1) an "order of specific performance" where a court orders the then-owner of the Bills to specifically play future games in Ralph Wilson stadium, and (2) a court order (called a "prohibitory injunction") that prevents the then-owner of the Bills from playing games anywhere but Ralph Wilson stadium. The end result is the same as a practical matter, but courts are generally more amenable to requests to issue an order that prohibits certain conduct, as opposed to an order that requires a party to affirmatively perform some future act. Don't disagree. The reason I was focused on an order of specific performance was the news article that was claiming that the Bills could not move due to a 'specific performance clause'. I think "prohibitory injunction" would be the first step in the legal process. Seeking an "order of specific performance" would be the end game. I think the burden of proof would be on the county to show irreparable harm which I believe it is a very high bar to get over. But as a separate agreement, the Non-Relocation Agreement requires mutual consideration to be enforceable. Do you see any separate consideration received by the BILLS in the Non-Relocation Agreement that would make it binding as a stand-alone agreement? Off the top of my head on page 6 "(aa) Untenantable Condition". Basically don't let the building fall apart. P.S. Life is still hectic here, but the thread title sucked me in. Still would like a future discussion in the other thread, but I'm out for a while. Sorry to post and run, but its unavoidable. NP ... got to run myself in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 jw -- do you assume baloney up front and then still dig to verify baloney? It must be fascinating and difficult to be a reporter in the days of the Internets .... Thanks for what you do. i have a list of people i regularly talk to to try to provide perspective on the baloney factor. but it's getting more and more difficult to distinguish given all the noise and nonsense that's out there right now. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Howdy ICanSleepWhenI'mDead, Don't disagree. The reason I was focused on an order of specific performance was the news article that was claiming that the Bills could not move due to a 'specific performance clause'. I think "prohibitory injunction" would be the first step in the legal process. Seeking an "order of specific performance" would be the end game. I think the burden of proof would be on the county to show irreparable harm which I believe it is a very high bar to get over. Off the top of my head on page 6 "(aa) Untenantable Condition". Basically don't let the building fall apart. NP ... got to run myself in a bit. This was one of my questions--the Non-Relo specifically states that both the team and county agree upon the terms of irreparable harm; given the context of the language, what makes it such a large hurdle? Genuinely curious...thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSNBDSC Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Stayin Edited June 6, 2014 by tsnbd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) He likes his chances in court because he will win. That said if he offers 2 billion to the trust and they take a 1 billion offer to someone just because they want to keep it in Buffalo he can sue as well. Discrimination against Canadians been done, not in best interest of the overall trust. Incorrect as usual when on this subject, but it will play out how it should Then the lawsuit would be initiated by .... The trust? Makes no sense. Is Rogers a trustee? Edited June 6, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Fans of most teams are so lucky. They get to enjoy football and not have to worry about their team moving. We, on the other hand, have had to endure 14 non playoff years and spend our lives parsing lease agreements, trusts, wills, Toronto Sun articles, Tom Golisano interviews, Delaware North press releases, and radio station sound bites - just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 So, this was never confirmed? It looks like the OP chimed in and then bounced. If this actually occurred, you'd figure that Shredd and Regan would have posted this on their twitter feed and other folks in the media would have picked it up. Neither have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnywo Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) What is going to happen when Canada doesn't allow all of the players with DUI's/DWI's into the country?....Looks like Jim Irsay will never watch the Colts play in Toronto.... Edited June 6, 2014 by johnnywo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The terms of the lease itself is stopping them from pulling an Irsay. They are contractually obligated to play their games at RWS until such time they can pay a $28.4m buyout after year six. GO BILLS!!! Even bringing up Irsay is completely inappropriate in this case. Mr. Wilson has consistently opposed franchise relocation and Mrs. Wilson's personal interactions with both the community and individual fans has more than earned her the benefit of the doubt as well. The Wilsons are the complete opposite of the Irsays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The $400 million payment is an early termination fee for breaking the lease agreement prior to the year 7 $28 million 'buy out' window with the lease being transferable to any new owner for the said term of the lease agreement which is 10 years. If so, court action would be required if the team broke the agreement and refused to pay the termination fee while attempting to relocate the team. The county/state would file legal charges against the team in court to sue for the $400 million and request an injuction to block the team from playing any games until the litigation is resolved. If anyone thinks judges and the courts hear and rule on cases as defined solely by the law then you haven't spent much time in court dealing with litigation. A lot of procedural BS comes into play too. You seem to know the law better than I... but the way I read it is that even if they are considering a move, it would be a breach of the contract. In which case, the county/state would sue and try to get an injunction to stop the move (before any of the termination fees would go in effect. The NFL would be implicated in the lawsuit, something they obviously would never want. So the team would have to win that case just for the right to pay the fee. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/under-lease-court-could-bar-any-new-owner-from-moving-buffalo-bills-20140412 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Fans of most teams are so lucky. They get to enjoy football and not have to worry about their team moving. We, on the other hand, have had to endure 14 non playoff years and spend our lives parsing lease agreements, trusts, wills, Toronto Sun articles, Tom Golisano interviews, Delaware North press releases, and radio station sound bites - just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 If the new purchaser pays the 400 m, no court is going to issue an injunction. You don't get an injunction when you have money damages. Including the liquidated damages/ buy out provision in the lease kills the county's chance at an injunction. It's going to be easy to void the lease, assuming the owner pays the 400 m and otherwise gets NFL approval. You have it backwards; the liquidated damages are a provision that kick in only under the scenario in which the County loses their case for an injunction. Basically the team would be fighting in court to win the right to pay $400M in LD to break the lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 This has probably been asked, but why would Cuomo and Schumer possibly meet with Rogers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted William's frozen head Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Fans of most teams are so lucky. They get to enjoy football and not have to worry about their team moving. We, on the other hand, have had to endure 14 non playoff years and spend our lives parsing lease agreements, trusts, wills, Toronto Sun articles, Tom Golisano interviews, Delaware North press releases, and radio station sound bites - just to name a few. At the end of the day, this ongoing conjecture is all horse$ch!tt. What will be, will be. We as fans cannot overcome the torrent of greed that could lead to the loss of the team in WNY. I chose to ignore it. I can fill my Sunday afternoons in a myriad of ways if the crap hits the fan with the Buffalo Bills leaving town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 1. Rogers would need approval first from the trust to buy the team, then from the league. 2. He would need to win a court case in Erie county so that he could pay the $400 million 3. He would then need approval from the NFL to move the team. 4. He'd have to pay a relocation fee, if approve. 5. He'd have to have a place for them to play, as Rogers centre doesn't meet NFL requirements for attendence and is getting refitted with grass the seats in the lower bowl can't be positioned for football games hence the Argos leaving. That means building a stadium, which hasn't started, and even if it did start today, it would still be at least 2 years before it was finished. 6. These stories are getting more and more ridiculous. EDIT: And I assume you mean Edward Rodgers, son of Ted Rodgers. Rodgers communication, can't buy a team. Well written. The point to just underscore is it is not an agreement just pay the $400 mil and you get to take the team. It is go to court on an iron clad agreement where a superior court judge could hold the owner even in contempt if he desires and the court can block the sale. Let's say Rogers group wins, then they have to be approved by the owners and pay the $200 mil transfer fee. Then they have to pay the 1 billion $ for the franchise. ( I feel like dr. evil when I write this). Then as pointed out they have to have a new stadium already built, and not their current one. Now Canada will not puBlicly fund these stadiums, so there's another Billion. Ok that means 400+200+1bil+1bil+exorbitant legal fees which could go into over 100 mil b/c NYS will not go without a fight. Last time I checked that is 2.6 bil in private funds and legal fees, and other miscellaneous costs I don't know about. This sounds like a fabricated story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) So, this was never confirmed? It looks like the OP chimed in and then bounced. If this actually occurred, you'd figure that Shredd and Regan would have posted this on their twitter feed and other folks in the media would have picked it up. Neither have happened. The conversation on the radio was confirmed (I've posted it twice now.) Whether the actual meeting happened has not been confirmed, but it seems unlikely. Edited June 7, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts