AP Source: NFL stadium sites explored in Toronto

[Peter]

I am very busy at work today, but what John Wawrow reported is directly relevant to the intent of JBJ and the Toronto group and is certainly enough for the State and County to file an action.

 

Courts repeatedly have held that circumstantial evidence is adequate. The Supreme Court in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2003), held:

 

 

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence also extends beyond civil cases; we have never questioned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction, even though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. See Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954) (observing that, in criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is “intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence”). And juries are routinely instructed that “[t]he law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.” 1A K. O'Malley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal § 12.04 (5th ed.2000); see also 4 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin, S. Reiss, & N. Batterman, Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 74.01 (2002) (model instruction 74–2). It is not surprising, therefore, that neither petitioner nor its amici curiae can point to any other circumstance in which we have restricted a litigant to the presentation of direct evidence absent some affirmative directive in a statute. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13

 

This is one of the Federal court jury instructions on circumstantial evidence:

 

There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial—direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts or claims to have actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should weigh all the evidence in the case.

 

Do any of you naysayers honestly believe that there are not communications and other evidence showing that JBJ's new found devotion is just a ruse?

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Well, we could look at from the several parties point of view.

 

The Trust

What is their function? Well, it's obviously to get the best deal in the bidding process, but what constitutes the best deal? What are the parameters they are working under outside of the legally documented ones? Do the voting members of the trust have a firm belief in keeping the team in Buffalo? I've seen no statement to such from any voting member of the trust and rightfully so, as I believe that could hinder achieving the best return for the product. After all, why limit the ability to garner income, the sale of the team after all is being done to establish long term cash flow viability in the Wilson family while avoiding various tax implications. Ralph Wilson was loyal to this area, but he was also loyal to his family. These are merely my beliefs.

 

The Wilson Family

As I eluded to, I've seen no comments from this party concerning their stance on staying in Buffalo or not. And once again, rightfully so.

I honestly no 0 about Mary and kids take on the situation, they've been very good about not disturbing the process. Maybe she feels the love the region showed her husband is more than worth overlooking a higher bid from a group who's MO is to move the team, even if stating otherwise. I just don't know. But the long term cash flow for the Wilson family, most likely through future generations, i.e. the kids and grand kids and great-grand kids may also play a major influence. Hard to say really without knowing Mary personally.

 

The Toronto Group

We pretty much agree on this groups intentions.

 

The locally vested bidders

We pretty much agree on this groups intentions.

 

To me, it all comes down to Mary. I realize there are more voters than her, but I have to believe she has heavy sway over what her late husband has accomplished. I would imagine this is immense respect for her withing the inner circle of the trust, just something that I feel strongly about.

This may be where the disconnect is. There have not been public statements made (for fear of losing negotiating power) but the trust has no intentions of an out of town buyer. They have local options that will be in the ball park. It will take a long term commitment to WNY (not a handshake) to win the bid. The two Mary's were added to the voting to see RW's wishes through.

 

What Bandit and I have been saying is that this IS the case. If you choose to wait until the details funnel out publicly that's not an issue. That is the way that it will ultimately play out. The change of heart isn't because they would now rather be in Buffalo; it is because they want a shot to own an NFL team.

 

If I had to guess I would guess Pegula but that isn't really going out on a limb. He is high on everyone's list for obvious reasons. I have yet to encounter anyone that wouldn't be thrilled with Pegula (except maybe JBJ ).

Edited July 25, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[jo39416]

I am very busy at work today, but what John Wawrow reported is directly relevant to the intent of JBJ and the Toronto group and is certainly enough for the State and County to file an action.

 

Courts repeatedly have held that circumstantial evidence is adequate. The Supreme Court in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2003), held:

 

 

 

 

This is one of the Federal court jury instructions on circumstantial evidence:

 

 

 

Do any of you naysayers honestly believe that there are not communications and other evidence showing that JBJ's new found devotion is just a ruse?

 

Interesting... the question that I have is who would be the defendant in the suit? Would it be the trust for selling to a party that is prohibited under the lease, or would it be the Toronto group?

 

My understanding is that it would be the trust, from there suit would be filed against Toronto group for looking at moving, no?

[HopefulFuture]

This may be where the disconnect is. There have not been public statements made (for fear of losing negotiating power) but the trust has no intentions of an out of town buyer. They have local options that will be in the ball park. It will take a long term commitment to WNY (not a handshake) to win the bid. The two Mary's were added to the voting to see RW's wishes through.

 

What Bandit and I have been saying is that this IS the case. If you choose to wait until the details funnel out publicly that's not an issue. That is the way that it will ultimately play out. The change of heart isn't because they would now rather be in Buffalo; it is because they want a shot to own an NFL team.

 

If I had to guess I would guess Pegula but that isn't really going out on a limb. He is high on everyone's list for obvious reasons. I have yet to encounter anyone that wouldn't be thrilled with Pegula (except maybe JBJ ).

 

Well, I am hoping, and I suspect, bandit and yourself may very well be correct. The reason I even jumped in to this conversation is because there is plausibility of the Toronto Group getting the team, even if remote. After all, they are in the bidding process.

My original intent was to warn or voice caution to the board over all of this groups intent. That is where I started, I think bandit, you and myself got a little side tracked there.

And yes, I have no choice but to wait until something rolls down decision wise for myself. In the mean time, it is a bit fun having bon jovi as a punching bag, hated the guy years ago for convincing my gf at the time that she should bug the **** out of me to grow long hair LOL.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Well, I am hoping, and I suspect, bandit and yourself may very well be correct. The reason I even jumped in to this conversation is because there is plausibility of the Toronto Group getting the team, even if remote. After all, they are in the bidding process.

My original intent was to warn or voice caution to the board over all of this groups intent. That is where I started, I think bandit, you and myself got a little side tracked there.

And yes, I have no choice but to wait until something rolls down decision wise for myself. In the mean time, it is a bit fun having bon jovi as a punching bag, hated the guy years ago for convincing my gf at the time that she should bug the **** out of me to grow long hair LOL.

FWIW, the Toronto group are real players. This isn't some big publicity stunt. I don't think that they can win the bid but they will be around.

[ALF]

All the JBJ group has to do is sign a contract with Erie County that the Bills will stay in WNY till 2055 or else pay a $1 billion penalty if moved. Put up or shutup time.

[Mayhem]

I think this might be the quote John Wawrow was talking about, particularly the last sentence:

 

But on Friday, Sports Business Journal reported that Leiweke talked up Toronto at the Sports Entertainment & Venues Tomorrow conference in Columbia, S.C. “The NFL game on Thursday night [saints-Falcons] outdrew the NHL in Canada. Nothing outdraws the NHL in Canada, except Rob Ford on the nightly news,” Leiweke said in a keynote address. “They love the NFL up there. It’s unbelievable. Toronto is a vibrant, deep market. People talk about the great marketplaces in the world for live entertainment and sports. No. 1 gross in hockey? Toronto. Top-10 gross still today in the NBA? Toronto. Top-five gross in Major League Soccer? Toronto. Music – there’s the O2 in London, Madison Square Garden, maybe Staples Center and then Air Canada Centre, which had 60 shows last year, all sold out. There’s so much money up there. But we’ve got to find a stadium, got to find owners and got to find a team.”

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/when-it-comes-to-the-nfl-tim-leiweke-has-history/article15599690/

[Tyrod's Tailor]

I think this might be the quote John Wawrow was talking about, particularly the last sentence:

 

But on Friday, Sports Business Journal reported that Leiweke talked up Toronto at the Sports Entertainment & Venues Tomorrow conference in Columbia, S.C. “The NFL game on Thursday night [saints-Falcons] outdrew the NHL in Canada. Nothing outdraws the NHL in Canada, except Rob Ford on the nightly news,” Leiweke said in a keynote address. “They love the NFL up there. It’s unbelievable. Toronto is a vibrant, deep market. People talk about the great marketplaces in the world for live entertainment and sports. No. 1 gross in hockey? Toronto. Top-10 gross still today in the NBA? Toronto. Top-five gross in Major League Soccer? Toronto. Music – there’s the O2 in London, Madison Square Garden, maybe Staples Center and then Air Canada Centre, which had 60 shows last year, all sold out. There’s so much money up there. But we’ve got to find a stadium, got to find owners and got to find a team.”

 

 

http://www.theglobea...rticle15599690/

 

I would imagine that's the one. Awesome news if that is in fact what JW is referring to.

[Kelly the Dog]

There is zero chance that Ralph would let his wife and daughter be vilified by the press and Bills fans for the rest of their lives for allowing the team to move, after all of his actions in his lifetime. It would be the worst possible thing to do to them outside of leaving them out of the will. There is just no chance of it. It makes zero sense.

[T master]

I am in Toronto now & visited the city last year & anything i get from the people here when i say i'm a Bills fan is that they Hate the Bills . Dirty looks , frowns , every negative type responce that you could get .

 

So i say to any thing to do with Toronto is #@%! THEM . They are just like LA alls they care about is getting more teams than they need , they won't support them like a Buffalo Bills fan have & will going forward .

 

Leave the NFL in the US where it belongs , let Toronto & London & who ever else out side the US that wants a NFL team to go piss up a rope !!

 

This is our football the rest of the world has there football . But if guys like Jerry jones & their intense motivation for greed has anything to do with the future of the NFL eventually they will ruin it for the true NFL & it's fans !!

[SF Bills Fan]

An AP Source is on WGR right now talking about how this could really hamper any chance they have of getting the team.

 

Agreed- the cat is out of the bag.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

So here are some questions ... who pays the penalty if the lease is broken before the sale? The trust, the Wilson family, or the new Owner. If, entering into negotiations to sell the team to a group known to want to move the team breaks the lease, then would not the current owners(i.e the Trust or the Wilson Family) be the ones sued a thus owe the 400 Million dollars? Seems to me that might sway anyone in the trust from voting for more money. Also, I would suspect that Morgan Stanley should not allow any bid to go forward if they know it would break a legal agreement that the team is currently operating under, no?

Edited July 25, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[dbringer]

Wow - F5 really worked on this topic. It's a hot one. Someone mentioned earlier that Donald Trump even has a lower profile than JBJ. Up until now, I thought he wasn't too serious about this, but now I'm starting to think otherwise.

[CodeMonkey]

Agreed- the cat is out of the bag.

The cat is out of the bag that a group that wants to own a NFL team that has most of its members in Toronto commissioned a study before the Bills went on the market investigating stadium locations in the Toronto area? That cat?

 

 

All the JBJ group has to do is sign a contract with Erie County that the Bills will stay in WNY till 2055 or else pay a $1 billion penalty if moved. Put up or shutup time.

Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they?

Edited July 25, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[thebandit27]

So here are some questions ... who pays the penalty if the lease is broken before the sale? The trust, the Wilson family, or the new Owner. If, entering into negotiations to sell the team to a group known to want to move the team breaks the lease, then would not the current owners(i.e the Trust or the Wilson Family) be the ones sued a thus owe the 400 Million dollars? Seems to me that might sway anyone in the trust from voting for more money. Also, I would suspect that Morgan Stanley should no allow any bid to go forward if they know it would break a legal agreement that the team is currently operating under, no?

 

The Non-Relo indicates that the "Team" pays the penalty, so I assume that would be the current ownership at the time of the violation.

 

As for Morgan Stanely, I believe they probably have limited liability with regard to the Team's actions...most likely they're in this to preside over the sales/purchase transaction.

[Mr. WEO]

This is what I had posted some time ago:

 

All of that becomes null after the lease is up. As long as any owner chosen by the trust does not attempt to move the team or scout a new location, they aren't in violation of the lease. Past actionjs by a group have no bearing in that lease as the lease only pertains to the owner of the team. If BJB is chosen as the owner, this story means nothing unless he again persues a stadium out of the Buffalo area.

 

Talking about relocating the team before the lease is up. I'm not sure how it is worded, but it seemed to me that the wording was set up that you cannot even discuss the concept of leaving before the lease is up. It's possible that the wording states you can talking about moving at any time, you just cannot discuss moving before the lease is up. That is a big difference. Does anyone know the real concept? Poloncranz made it sound like you couldn't even talk about it, or discuss it in any way. It may be that you can talk about it all you want, you just can't consider moving it until after the lease is up. It probably has provisions that you must negotiate in good faith to keep the team here. That would be reason alone for the county and state to sue.

 

See above. If the new owner doesn't make any gesture to move the team, there can be no lawsuit.

 

If BJB was scouting Canadian stadium sites beginning 18 months ago---so what? Ralph was still alive and this lease wasn't.

 

No news here. Also, the AP should already have a pretty good idea that the trust isn't selling to BJB no matter what he has or has not done to this point.

[l< j]

So if this does indeed torpedo the JBJ ship, where do we put the Wawrow statue?

 

kj

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

 

 

Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they?

 

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

[Delete This Account]

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

 

it's included in the lease's wording. the "Bills" are the "Bills" no matter who owns them through the course of the lease.

 

jw

[CodeMonkey]

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

Yeah I have had that in the back of my mind the entire time as well. But companies are bound by previous contracts when they are sold to new ownership. It is the corporation that is bound by the contract, no matter who the ownership (or shareholders) are. So i suspect that applies here as well.

 

Edit: And what jw said while we were typing at the same time

Edited July 25, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[A Dog Named Kelso]

All of that becomes null after the lease is up. As long as any owner chosen by the trust does not attempt to move the team or scout a new location, they aren't in violation of the lease. Past actionjs by a group have no bearing in that lease as the lease only pertains to the owner of the team. If BJB is chosen as the owner, this story means nothing unless he again persues a stadium out of the Buffalo area.

 

 

 

See above. If the new owner doesn't make any gesture to move the team, there can be no lawsuit.

 

If BJB was scouting Canadian stadium sites beginning 18 months ago---so what? Ralph was still alive and this lease wasn't.

 

No news here. Also, the AP should already have a pretty good idea that the trust isn't selling to BJB no matter what he has or has not done to this point.

 

Not positive but I believe it shows intent. Not sure if that would matter in this case but ...

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

All of that becomes null after the lease is up. As long as any owner chosen by the trust does not attempt to move the team or scout a new location, they aren't in violation of the lease. Past actionjs by a group have no bearing in that lease as the lease only pertains to the owner of the team. If BJB is chosen as the owner, this story means nothing unless he again persues a stadium out of the Buffalo area.

 

 

 

See above. If the new owner doesn't make any gesture to move the team, there can be no lawsuit.

 

If BJB was scouting Canadian stadium sites beginning 18 months ago---so what? Ralph was still alive and this lease wasn't.

 

No news here. Also, the AP should already have a pretty good idea that the trust isn't selling to BJB no matter what he has or has not done to this point.

The reason it's a big deal is that it is proof to Bills fans in the city (even if it was 18months ago) that the they want to move the team to Toronto. You saw the reaction from the fans who didn't bother to take the 18 months into account. And as if we needed any more proof, but it is all there in an article that will be linked for years and years. IF they win the bid (which is virtually impossible in my mind), the exodus of Bills fans in buffalo over the next eight lame duck years will be quicker. There is no way the NFL is going to agree to this. It would be an absolute nightmare for them. The article helps solidify that, especially the reaction it engendered.

[thebandit27]

All of that becomes null after the lease is up. As long as any owner chosen by the trust does not attempt to move the team or scout a new location, they aren't in violation of the lease. Past actionjs by a group have no bearing in that lease as the lease only pertains to the owner of the team. If BJB is chosen as the owner, this story means nothing unless he again persues a stadium out of the Buffalo area.

 

 

 

See above. If the new owner doesn't make any gesture to move the team, there can be no lawsuit.

 

If BJB was scouting Canadian stadium sites beginning 18 months ago---so what? Ralph was still alive and this lease wasn't.

 

No news here. Also, the AP should already have a pretty good idea that the trust isn't selling to BJB no matter what he has or has not done to this point.

 

I agree. However, the simple fact that they cannot even discuss relocation during the lease makes it nigh-on impossible for relocation to occur even upon expiration of it. There's a lot that has to go into relocating a team, and to think it can all get done between the end of one season and the beginning of another is a serious leap of faith.

 

So if this does indeed torpedo the JBJ ship, where do we put the Wawrow statue?

 

kj

 

I'm glad people are taking solace in the article, but the simple fact is that this doesn't shed light on anything the Trust didn't already know. Trust me, they are doing their homework...if they weren't, this whole thing would've wrapped by now.

 

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

 

I don't think change in ownership precludes a valid lease for buildings in most cases, does it?

 

I mean, the engineering company I worked for was acquired in a multimillion dollar deal, and our building lease didn't change a lick. I know it's not apples-to-apples, but why would it change?

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

It's put in there so that no matter who owns the team they cannot leave, and was likely put in there because of Ralph's age. It was a way that Poloncranz could ensure the team stays.

[JohnC]

 

The cat is out of the bag that a group that wants to own a NFL team that has most of its members in Toronto commissioned a study before the Bills went on the market investigating stadium locations in the Toronto area? That cat?

 

 

 

Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they?

 

Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause.

[Mr. WEO]

The reason it's a big deal is that it is proof to Bills fans in the city (even if it was 18months ago) that the they want to move the team to Toronto. You saw the reaction from the fans who didn't bother to take the 18 months into account. And as if we needed any more proof, but it is all there in an article that will be linked for years and years. IF they win the bid (which is virtually impossible in my mind), the exodus of Bills fans in buffalo over the next eight lame duck years will be quicker. There is no way the NFL is going to agree to this. It would be an absolute nightmare for them. The article helps solidify that, especially the reaction it engendered.

 

There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that.

 

Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article.

 

I agree. However, the simple fact that they cannot even discuss relocation during the lease makes it nigh-on impossible for relocation to occur even upon expiration of it. There's a lot that has to go into relocating a team, and to think it can all get done between the end of one season and the beginning of another is a serious leap of faith.

 

 

 

I'm glad people are taking solace in the article, but the simple fact is that this doesn't shed light on anything the Trust didn't already know. Trust me, they are doing their homework...if they weren't, this whole thing would've wrapped by now.

 

 

 

I don't think change in ownership precludes a valid lease for buildings in most cases, does it?

 

I mean, the engineering company I worked for was acquired in a multimillion dollar deal, and our building lease didn't change a lick. I know it's not apples-to-apples, but why would it change?

 

I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it.

[dave mcbride]

This is the best thread in a while. Thanks, JW!

[CodeMonkey]

[/b]

 

Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause.

I strongly suspect that agreement about the sabres was not for 35 years (or forever) and did not include a 1 Billion dollar penalty.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that.

 

Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article.

Bills fans in general and even here where almost all of them are dedicated are not as well read or well informed on these things as you or I are who follow them closely. You saw the reaction from even long time posters who should know better that it was no news. JW is about to get a French Connection Statue in front of the stadium for writing that article whether it gave actual new news or not. You're looking at it as a technical fact, and you are right. But the actual affect is palpable.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Kelly the Dog

[KDIGGZ]

[/b]

 

Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause.

that was probably easier to do in that situation because the Sabres had a new stadium. i think the big thing holding up this negotiation is the fact that the new owner will have to buy the team AND pay for a new stadium in the near future. the state won't put up as much money to keep the team here if they know the new owner signed a deal to keep them in town. that doesn't give the new owner a lot of negotiating power. it's too bad that this latest work at the Ralph was just an update and not a whole new stadium. if we had a new stadium with a locked in 30 yr lease then we could have sold to whoever we wanted after Ralph passed and we wouldn't even be having this discussion

[TheFunPolice]

Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me?

 

No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal.

 

Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY.

 

Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto.

 

In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen.

 

Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed.

 

Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto.

 

Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it.

Edited July 25, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[Kirby Jackson]

 

I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it.

They would be buying the corporation and not just the assets so they will be bound to contracts, liabilities, receivables, etc.... The leases are typically written in a manner that the new owner will be bound to them.

[Kelly the Dog]

Don't think this has been posted yet.

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/02/niagara-bills-group-would-be-hard-to-beat-source

 

[Kirby Jackson]

Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me?

 

No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal.

 

Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY.

 

Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto.

 

In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen.

 

Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed.

 

Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto.

 

Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it.

Agree with your sentiment. The part that is missing is WHAT has made them change course? It isn't the goodness of their hearts. Anyone thinking that the trust was EVER going to take this group at the word just doesn't get it. While this exposed their original intentions to the public this is certainly not news to the Bills brass or trust. Their changed their minds because they had to in order to have a chance. They want to own an NFL team first and an NFL team in Toronto 2nd (not the other way around).

[thebandit27]

Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me?

 

No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal.

 

Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY.

 

Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto.

 

In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen.

 

Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed.

 

Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto.

 

Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're referring to with the "super extra special" comment. They aren't any more dedicated to these plans than they were to Toronto...the point continues to be that they won't win the bid without a guarantee to stay in the WNY area. As of now, we don't know that they have or haven't offered one. If they do, they'll be considered; if they don't, they won't.

 

Where is the "complete and utter BS" here?

 

Don't think this has been posted yet.

 

http://www.torontosu...-to-beat-source

 

Thanks for the link...that actually was posted right around the time the article was written (I'd have to see if I can find the thread...be right back)

 

Found it:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168180-jbj-tanenbaum-and-jacobs-family-super-team/page__hl__%22niagara+bills%22

Edited July 25, 2014 by thebandit27

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

Thanks for the link...that actually was posted right around the time the article was written (I'd have to see if I can find the thread...be right back)

Oops. My bad. I just saw it somewhere and didn't check the date on it. I knew there were other articles written on this before. I think I even posted about this in that thread or another one. I thought, without looking, that they were regenerating this concept because they couldn't make Toronto work. Carry on.

 

[GG]

 

 

I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?

 

Pretty much everywhere. Contracts are written that they survive "successors and assigns."

[4merper4mer]

There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that.

 

Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article.

 

 

 

I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it.

 

I don't understand why you like to post this stuff. Do you like poking at Bills fans? Do you want them to move?

 

When your team almost moved to Hartford were you pissed? Granted it would not have been as big a deal because it was still in "New England" but it would still have been a move. Did Bills fans come around and tell you all the reasons your team should move?

 

There is AMPLE evidence this set of bidders wants to move the team. Is it ok with you if we want the team to stay?

 

Do you really have to go so far feigning ignorance of leases and other legal obligations and sound idiotic on purpose to poke at Bills fans? Let's ask it this way: If you bought a mom and pop corner store would you REALLY have to live up to obligations they made like a lease and their accounts payable? Answer: yes. Stop with your crap.

Edited July 25, 2014 by 4merper4mer

[JohnC]

I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it.

 

 

When you take over an entity, including property, you are taking over the responsibilities and liabilities associated with it by contract. That doesn't preclude you from negotiating a different deal, but it does preclude you from walking away from that which legally bounds you to the property or entity.

 

As Bandit indicated if you take over a building that has a lease you are obligated to live up to that lease, unless it is renegotiated.

 

 

Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article.

 

My understanding is that anyone who buys the team is subjected to the terms of the lease. One of the terms is that the new owner can not sign a deal with an intention to move. The intention to move and any act demonstrating it would be cause for litigation by the county and state. At least that is how I understand it after listening to the County Executive on a couple of radio interviews. That is why there is so much commotion from the stadium study in Toronto.

 

 

 

.

[thebandit27]

Oops. My bad. I just saw it somewhere and didn't check the date on it. I knew there were other articles written on this before. I think I even posted about this in that thread or another one. I thought, without looking, that they were regenerating this concept because they couldn't make Toronto work. Carry on.

 

No sweat...I myself had to check to be sure.