mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 using common sense and looking at many precedents of a) broken leases and b ) NFL owners leaving town and dealing with the repercussions on the other side. Mostly just common sense, though. Money will out. Please tell me how many other NFL owners violated a valid lease and picked up and moved their team out of town. Name one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 b ) NFL owners leaving town and dealing with the repercussions on the other side. As to point B, please show me in NFL history where a team has just moved without first either getting NFL consent or going to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 So your entire argument, in the face of facts, logic, reason, and the law, comes down to "money talks"? Can you not see why that is neither reasonable nor compelling? Nope, money seems to be the deciding factor in America. A lease is a piece of paper that can be argued many ways, by good attorneys. It is not meaningless, it spells out terms of payment etc., but it is just not that strong either, if one side wants to break it. No matter what it says, No-one will go to jail, no-one will be shot, if they abandon the lease especially if they pay the 400m. difficult to see then why someone cannot do it with high powered attorneys which they will surely have. Please tell me how many other NFL owners violated a valid lease and picked up and moved their team out of town. Name one. Baltimore Cleveland LA Rams LA Raiders off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Nope, money seems to be the deciding factor in America. A lease is a piece of paper that can be argued many ways, by good attorneys. It is not meaningless, it spells out terms of payment etc., but it is just not that strong either, if one side wants to break it. No matter what it says, No-one will go to jail, no-one will be shot, if they abandon the lease especially if they pay the 400m. difficult to see then why someone cannot do it with high powered attorneys which they will surely have. Baltimore Cleveland LA Rams LA Raiders off the top of my head. And you are wrong again. Baltimore-Cleveland was approved by the league. LA Rams/LA Raiders moves were again, both approved by the league. Even when Oakland wanted to move to LA, the league blocked in with an injunction, you know that that legal thing that you seem to think some owner would just be able to get around. That was in 1980, the team didn't move until after the court case, in 1982. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 As to point B, please show me in NFL history where a team has just moved without first either getting NFL consent or going to court? the Baltimore move was a midnight run out of town. They had NFL consent to do that? If they did, then the owners will very likely consent to a Buffalo midnight run as well, most owners want the Bills in a higher revenue generating town. Even if they say they don't care and the love Buffalo as an NFL town, they do want them somewhere else. Nature of humanity, they will all get more, they want it to happen. In some cases, very openly. Anyway, enough arguing over semantics, let us see where the Bills play in 2018. that is a good measuring stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 the Baltimore move was a midnight run out of town. They had NFL consent to do that? If they did, then the owners will very likely consent to a Buffalo midnight run as well, most owners want the Bills in a higher revenue generating town. Even if they say they don't care and the love Buffalo as an NFL town, they do want them somewhere else. Nature of humanity, they will all get more, they want it to happen. In some cases, very openly. Anyway, enough arguing over semantics, let us see where the Bills play in 2018. that is a good measuring stick. thats my bet what happens if there's a higher out of town bid, owners will approve. More profits will trump any sentiment towards keeping Bills in Buffalo, really seems kind of ludicrous to think otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) the Baltimore move was a midnight run out of town. They had NFL consent to do that? If they did, then the owners will very likely consent to a Buffalo midnight run as well, most owners want the Bills in a higher revenue generating town. Even if they say they don't care and the love Buffalo as an NFL town, they do want them somewhere else. Nature of humanity, they will all get more, they want it to happen. In some cases, very openly. Anyway, enough arguing over semantics, let us see where the Bills play in 2018. that is a good measuring stick. The Bills lease allows the county to get a court injunction blocking any move out of the Buffalo area. The team agreed to these terms and it would take something extraordinary to overturn them. If anything a court will default to enforcing the agreement that both sides signed. Edited June 8, 2014 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 thats my bet what happens if there's a higher out of town bid, owners will approve. More profits will trump any sentiment towards keeping Bills in Buffalo, really seems kind of ludicrous to think otherwise Yup. Duh... then it is just about the vaunted lease. Bye bye birdie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Baltimore Cleveland LA Rams LA Raiders off the top of my head. Sorry, wrong again. In none of those situations did an owner move the team during the term of a valid lease. Edited June 8, 2014 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Please tell me how many other NFL owners violated a valid lease and picked up and moved their team out of town. Name one. Cleveland did. I think it will be a lot harder to do this time around, since Cleveland was actually losing money. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-24/news/1995358011_1_relocation-modell-browns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Cleveland did. I think it will be a lot harder to do this time around, since Cleveland was actually losing money. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-24/news/1995358011_1_relocation-modell-browns It appears that that lease did not have a non-location provision in which both sides agreed there would be irreparable harm if the lease was terminated early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSNBDSC Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Ignore the noise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The Bills lease allows the county to get a court injunction blocking any move out of the Buffalo area. The team agreed to these terms and it would take something extraordinary to overturn them. If anything a court will default to enforcing the agreement that both sides signed. Getting a judge to issue an injunction might take all of 5 minutes in the middle of the night. The moving vans might make it all the way to the corner of Abbott and Big Tree before being forced to stop. At this point, violating an injunction may include jail time as well as fines. Good luck with that. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Getting a judge to issue an injunction might take all of 5 minutes in the middle of the night. The moving vans might make it all the way to the corner of Abbott and Big Tree before being forced to stop. At this point, violating an injunction may include jail time as well as fines. Good luck with that. GO BILLS!!! Agreed, and good luck with the NFL allowing someone to violate a court injunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Agreed, and good luck with the NFL allowing someone to violate a court injunction. Yep. I keep thinking back to that Tim Graham blurb from last month where he stated one of the Toronto groups has backed out due to the constraints the lease places on moving the team. I'm sure that group had a top notch legal team analyzing the lease as well. You don't have to dig too far into the document before you reach that "What the f---!" moment those lawyers reached. I don't think there is any precedent for this kind of lease in sports history, let alone NFL history. To compare it to leases that the Browns, Raiders, Colts and others had at the time of their moves is shortsighted I think. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 God, some people really don't want to let facts get in the way of their freak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Nope, money seems to be the deciding factor in America. A lease is a piece of paper that can be argued many ways, by good attorneys. It is not meaningless, it spells out terms of payment etc., but it is just not that strong either, if one side wants to break it. No matter what it says, No-one will go to jail, no-one will be shot, if they abandon the lease especially if they pay the 400m. difficult to see then why someone cannot do it with high powered attorneys which they will surely have. Baltimore Cleveland LA Rams LA Raiders off the top of my head. Yes, money running things is why companies like Enron don't get busted, why people like Bernie Madoff and the Regis family never end up in jail, etc. You have offered zero in the way of actual, legal, or practical content that would allow the team to break the lease and move, as the vast majority of the interested world has asserted. Getting a judge to issue an injunction might take all of 5 minutes in the middle of the night. The moving vans might make it all the way to the corner of Abbott and Big Tree before being forced to stop. At this point, violating an injunction may include jail time as well as fines. Good luck with that. GO BILLS!!! No no, you don't get it...money, and high-powered lawyers, and middle of the night, and...the rich always get what they want!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 You have offered zero in the way of actual, legal, or practical content and yet people feel compelled to respond again & again & again & again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Please WEO; you know perfectly well that any new owner with intent of keeping the team here will get the support of the State and County. Local buyer = team stays...there really isn't much reason to complicate it further. I'm sure each owner who moved his team inthe past has assuemd that he would get support from the local government to fund his stadium. When push came to shove and the money didn't materialize, the owners took the teams elsewhere. I just don't see poor Erie county shelling out a large chunk for a new stadium. And the state (notice how Cuomo has avoided any specific committment, knowing how it may be more politically risky in the vast majority of the state that elects him governor) has already committed 1 billion to Buffalo in projects that at least have some chance of brining in some decent local and state tax income. No matter what "local" billionaire buys the team--he won't be doing it as an act of charity. He will know that he has..."options" in 2020. If the team is sold this fall and he doesn't see a viable stadium financing package from the local government on the table, he may stop taling about a "new Bills stadium" and wait out the next 5 seasons. Or use this as leverage to bleed the state for more money. Or maybe the new owner challenges the validity of a lease that he did not sign and the case gets bogged down for a few years while some clever entrepreneur sees an opprtunity and funds a new stadium....somewhere...... I'm sure that they will have a really easy time doing that in Erie County Court. The reason that the league may hesitate to approve Rogers (or any Canadian buyer) is the lingering threat from Schumer of challenging the anti-trust exemption. The money that will cost the owners is WAY more than they will make in a new market vs. WNY. Schumer has never threatened this status. He never will seriously (maybe cynically, knowing it will go nowhere and while he panders) push for it. However, onwers like Jerry Jones, Kraft, the Rooneys, the Maras, Woody Johnson and other would LOVE for the anti-trust exemption to go away. Jones has been whining about revenue sharing with the Bills and other teams for years. Also, can you imagine what kind of TV contracts that the Cowboys, Steelers, Giants, etc could negotiate for theselves? These guys can't be threatened by Schumer. They own him and his Congressional colleagues--all parties know this. if you really think it is impossible for the team to just move and deal with the legal after the fact, you are quite naive. It has happened, it can happen again. Heck they can move the team and simply pay the lease amount per annum worst comes to worst. It is a pipe dream that that lease can really bind the Bills to Buffalo. Ok, Sure. Dream on. I hope they will stay but ALL leases can be broken and it is just a matter of how much it will cost, not whether it can be done at all. Legal Schmeagel. Money talks. Bills could easily be gone by 2015, all depends on new ownership and how much they want to get away. take off the blinders. They will take the team out of town FIRST, if they want to, then fight it out in court. And if they pay the 400m specified as the breakup fee, I just don't see the court getting too hopped up about it. Soem people see a poorly disguised pit in the road and move easily around it. Others cheerfully jump right in--over and over and over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Kirby, this is probably right, but as ICSWID outlines in his post, one potential glitch is the new owner arguing that the county breached its obligations under the lease, thereby giving new owner a free pass to move the team. That legal fight would take years and years to resolve, though, I suspect. ...and would be fought in Erie County Court. There's a better chance of winning powerball than that court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts