Delete This Account Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 ummm, i think we've strayed from the initial point. did what the initial poster suggest actually happen or is it bogus? no one seems to have any links to this thing or anything verified. the trouble that's occurring with this process is speculation and rumor-mongering are now driving the story to the point where it's very difficult to believe anything that's out there. and i fear this is only going to get worse given the vaccuum of any real news. to suggest this is what was discussed on the radio and a failure to follow it up with actual verification will only lead to these endless debates and discussions that repeatedly fill a whole host of speculative threads already on this board. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I guess if you believe that someone is going to sue Erie County in Erie County and win - it wouldn't be ironclad. I just don't see that as a possibility. Fair enough, the main point being that this battle will be fought in Erie County court. Their interests are obviously going to be self serving and in no way should we expect them to be impartial. I think this would be in the hands of a judge, not a jury. And I would certainly expect a judge to be completely impartial. However that judge might need to be re-elected someday as well No local judge may want to take it for that reason and it could end up in a different court. I still hope this is all just a mental exercise. ummm, i think we've strayed from the initial point. jw Yup good point. Sorry for contributing to the stray. Google shows no mention of this except for here, FWIW. Edited June 6, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 ummm, i think we've strayed from the initial point. did what the initial poster suggest actually happen or is it bogus? no one seems to have any links to this thing or anything verified. the trouble that's occurring with this process is speculation and rumor-mongering are now driving the story to the point where it's very difficult to believe anything that's out there. and i fear this is only going to get worse given the vaccuum of any real news. to suggest this is what was discussed on the radio and a failure to follow it up with actual verification will only lead to these endless debates and discussions that repeatedly fill a whole host of speculative threads already on this board. jw i agree and it is troubling that we fans have to endure all this.. just wish something would come out that would put our minds at ease.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Isn't Rodgers dead? LOL Don;t let that minor point kill off a good story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I think this would be in the hands of a judge, not a jury. And I would certainly expect a judge to be completely impartial. However that judge might need to be re-elected someday as well No local judge may want to take it for that reason and it could end up in a different court. I still hope this is all just a mental exercise. Yup good point. Sorry for contributing to the stray. Google shows no mention of this except for here, FWIW. Ha ha, that is what I was getting at. JW is right. Thi whole thing has started to spin out of control. Edited June 6, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 ummm, i think we've strayed from the initial point. did what the initial poster suggest actually happen or is it bogus? no one seems to have any links to this thing or anything verified. the trouble that's occurring with this process is speculation and rumor-mongering are now driving the story to the point where it's very difficult to believe anything that's out there. and i fear this is only going to get worse given the vaccuum of any real news. to suggest this is what was discussed on the radio and a failure to follow it up with actual verification will only lead to these endless debates and discussions that repeatedly fill a whole host of speculative threads already on this board. jw Agreed. By the way, any updates on the Golisano/West Seneca story?? I know it's in another thread, but you're the one who broke it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) The only team in New York State will not be moved to Toronto without a major fight from Cuomo and Schumer (unless they are posturing) nor will this happen if Mary Wilson has anything to say about it. Plus the NFL & Goodell have to OK it before any one buys the team . With Goodell being a homer i think the Bills may have a good partner on their side ... Beside the NFL needs to stay in the US screw London & Toronto ... Edited June 6, 2014 by T master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 i agree and it is troubling that we fans have to endure all this.. just wish something would come out that would put our minds at ease.. you think you've got it tough. try being me, attempting to sort through all this and verifying what's baloney. ... jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 i agree and it is troubling that we fans have to endure all this.. just wish something would come out that would put our minds at ease.. No worries. Tom Golisano already told us the Sabres were much closer to leaving than the Bills are. He is quite sure they will remain in WNY even if not owned by him. So it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Just to be clear there isn't a $400M buyout. There is a $28M buyout in 2020 and that is it (I think $28.4M actually). The $400M would be the result of someone suing Erie County in Erie County court and winning a case that Erie County violated the lease. The $400M should never have been mentioned because it is TOTALLY irrelevant. The buyout is in 2020 and only for a few month window. Sorry but this does not make sense to me. I understand that this is the correct reading of the lease but, basically, it is saying if the county violated(basically does not hold up its end)the lease then the victor(if its the current occupant) is responsible for a 400 million dollar penalty. If the county violated the lease and lost a court battle won't the court rule that the lease document is void? It seems to be saying "hey if I screw you over you get to pay me 400 million for the trouble I caused you." doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I guess if you believe that someone is going to sue Erie County in Erie County and win - it wouldn't be ironclad. I just don't see that as a possibility. Fair enough, the main point being that this battle will be fought in Erie County court. Their interests are obviously going to be self serving and in no way should we expect them to be impartial. It could also end up in Federal court: Each Party hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County, or the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Each Party expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction and waives any claim that Erie County, New York or the Western District of New York is an inconvenient forum or an improper forum based on improper venue. Each Party agrees to service of process in any form or manner permitted by law, addressed to it as set forth in Section 8(b). Each Party agrees not to institute suit arising out of this Agreement against any other Party in a court in any jurisdiction, except as stated above, without the consent of such other Party. Each Party agrees that a true, correct and complete copy of this Agreement kept in the County’s, the ECSC’s or the Bills’ course of business may be admitted into evidence as an original. Any decisions rendered by the lower courts can, and most likely will, be appealed to a higher court. He cant just pay the 400 mill and leave. He has to go to court first and get a ruling that the lease has been breached. Then, if he wins(unlikely), he pays 400 million. The $400 million is not for the county/state/ ECSC defaulting on the Non-Relocation agreement, it applies to the Bills defaulting on the agreement. The new owner would have to go to court to have all the provisions of the contract ruled invalid. Writing something into a contract doesn't make it legal. The Bills acknowledge and agree that, if upon the occurrence of a Non-Relocation Default, equitable relief is not granted by a court of competent jurisdiction for any reason, or is otherwise unavailable, the payment by the Bills of liquidated damages is the next most appropriate remedy. Therefore, in the event of a Non-Relocation Default, and the failure of any court to grant the equitable relief described in Section 5(a) above, the Bills shall pay liquidated damages to the County and the ECSC, in the aggregate, in the amount of Four Hundred Million ($400,000,000) Dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 you think you've got it tough. try being me, attempting to sort through all this and verifying what's baloney. ... jw With no one who knows anything talking, isn't it all baloney at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Sorry but this does not make sense to me. I understand that this is the correct reading of the lease but, basically, it is saying if the county violated(basically does not hold up its end)the lease then the victor(if its the current occupant) is responsible for a 400 million dollar penalty. If the county violated the lease and lost a court battle won't the court rule that the lease document is void? It seems to be saying "hey if I screw you over you get to pay me 400 million for the trouble I caused you." doesn't it? Even if the new owner won the court battle (highly unlikely) they would still be responsible for the $400M. http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bills-cannot-be-relocated-before-2020-the-long-reported-400m-buyout-option-does-not-exist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze 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. Sue under what grounds? He has no case. The trust can sell to whomever they want. 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 Mary Wilson is the controlling owner of the Buffalo Bills. Mary Wilson and Mary Owen are decision makers on the trust, along with Littman and another person. It is strange to me that people believe Mr. Wilson would name these people to administer the trust and put them in a position they would be in by selling the team to an ownership group who will move the team. And it seems to me an entity attempting to sue this particular trust based on who they choose to sell the team to is launching frivolous suit that is wasting the courts time and its own resources. Edited June 6, 2014 by purple haze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 you think you've got it tough. try being me, attempting to sort through all this and verifying what's baloney. ... jw 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 With no one who knows anything talking, isn't it all baloney at this point? At least with attribution it's someone else's baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I think this would be in the hands of a judge, not a jury. And I would certainly expect a judge to be completely impartial. However that judge might need to be re-elected someday as well No local judge may want to take it for that reason and it could end up in a different court. I still hope this is all just a mental exercise. We would expect a judge to be impartial, but since they're just people and political interest does play a part in their job security, it could go either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 you think you've got it tough. try being me, attempting to sort through all this and verifying what's baloney. ... jw haha.. i know, it is much appreciated for sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Even if the new owner won the court battle (highly unlikely) they would still be responsible for the $400M. http://blogs.canoe.c...does-not-exist/ From the article the reasons for "highly unlikely": “But they cannot win the threshold issue (in court),” Ganis said. “We have something in the U.S. that we call a specific performance clause. Teams cannot terminate under a specific performance clause — cannot. 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. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts