Kelly the Dog Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Any NDA written like that is unenforceable and just as bad as not having one at all. I work in R&D environments and as such come across them all the time. Most are well written and fairly boilerplate. And I can't speak for the trust and these alleged leaks, but any company worth anything enforces them to the limit of the law if they need to as their livelihood can hang in the balance. If these leaks are real, and are against the NDA, expect significant legal action. If there is none, it probably means that the alleged leaks are either not against the terms of the NDA, or are nothing but fiction. I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. The issue is did what they do affect anything whatsoever and the answer is no. There is no way they should enforce the letter vs the spirit of the law in this case. They would lose money for the trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) He's going to fail to buy the team and has failed at preserving his dignity. Too bad!Wouldn't it be funny if the trust started making JBJ do things if he wants to stay in the race? or allow him the chance to earn a few extra bucks.... Any NDA written like that is unenforceable and just as bad as not having one at all.I work in R&D environments and as such come across them all the time. Most are well written and fairly boilerplate.And I can't speak for the trust and these alleged leaks, but any company worth anything enforces them to the limit of the law if they need to as their livelihood can hang in the balance.If these leaks are real, and are against the NDA, expect significant legal action. If there is none, it probably means that the alleged leaks are either not against the terms of the NDA, or are nothing but fiction.They want the bidders to remain not to sue them. If damage is done they will hold them accountable but they would much rather not lessen the bidding pool. Edited August 4, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. The issue is did what they do affect anything whatsoever and the answer is no. There is no way they should enforce the letter vs the spirit of the law in this case. They would lose money for the trust. I see your logic. But why waste time and money with an NDA that you have no intention of enforcing? And why would anyone with half a brain who signed it, risk leaking? It doesn't make any sense. You may well be right. But my opinion is still that the leaks are nothing but bull ****. We will almost certainly never know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I see your logic. But why waste time and money with an NDA that you have no intention of enforcing? And why would anyone with half a brain who signed it, risk leaking? It doesn't make any sense. You may well be right. But my opinion is still that the leaks are nothing but bull ****. We will almost certainly never know for sure. "Enforcement" is just as easily accomplished by not accepting the violator's bid -- which is exactly what's going to happen to the JBJ group. It's also an example of "shield vs. sword" -- if any group alleges the trust did not operate fairly, that group's own violation of the NDA can be used against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 "Enforcement" is just as easily accomplished by not accepting the violator's bid -- which is exactly what's going to happen to the JBJ group. It's also an example of "shield vs. sword" -- if any group alleges the trust did not operate fairly, that group's own violation of the NDA can be used against them. So it is just the JBJ group that has leaked info? And why would they do that having signed the NDA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) I see your logic. But why waste time and money with an NDA that you have no intention of enforcing? And why would anyone with half a brain who signed it, risk leaking? It doesn't make any sense. You may well be right. But my opinion is still that the leaks are nothing but bull ****. We will almost certainly never know for sure. it's just to protect yourself if a breach of confidentiality ends up costing the trust money in a sale. Edited August 4, 2014 by billsfaninmanhattan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I see your logic. But why waste time and money with an NDA that you have no intention of enforcing? And why would anyone with half a brain who signed it, risk leaking? It doesn't make any sense. You may well be right. But my opinion is still that the leaks are nothing but bull ****. We will almost certainly never know for sure. I was somewhat joking about the "you cannot breathe oxygen" remark but not by much. Those agreements are to protect you against ANYTHING. Any kind of information leaking that could affect your business negatively in any way. So they go overboard in their actual language. It's not that they have no intention of enforcing it, it's a simple matter of did JBJ disclose ANYTHING whatsoever that hurt ANYONE whatsoever in ANY way. And the answer is no. So they choose not to go after them. If what he said did do even the tiniest bit of damage, they probably would. I sign these all the time for intellectual property. They always say you cannot discuss any of this without expressed written consent. Invariably I will say to the producer or person i signed this for that I am going to disguss this with a few people because we need their feedback. Invariably they say of course, and usually say sure, use your best judgment. The doc says one thing, but what it means is "don't be stupid, reckless, or fukk me." Granted not all fit that but the point remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Sorry but don't all coaches fall into these categories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 My main reason (among several) for not wanting Bon Jovi involved with the team is that he's a rabid Giants fan. Whoever buys it should understand, respect and honor the legacy of a founding member of the AFL. In o case sbould it be in the hands of a man who I would bet has no understanding of the AFL and if he was a fan way back when would likely have been rooting for the league to fail. Let him buy Philly when it is next on the block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 So it is just the JBJ group that has leaked info? And why would they do that having signed the NDA? In the case of JBJ? I can only assume ignorance, in a desperate attempt to reverse the negative PR surrounding their candidacy. In the case of Trump? Well, it's The Donald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) I was somewhat joking about the "you cannot breathe oxygen" remark but not by much. Those agreements are to protect you against ANYTHING. Any kind of information leaking that could affect your business negatively in any way. So they go overboard in their actual language. It's not that they have no intention of enforcing it, it's a simple matter of did JBJ disclose ANYTHING whatsoever that hurt ANYONE whatsoever in ANY way. And the answer is no. So they choose not to go after them. If what he said did do even the tiniest bit of damage, they probably would. I sign these all the time for intellectual property. They always say you cannot discuss any of this without expressed written consent. Invariably I will say to the producer or person i signed this for that I am going to disguss this with a few people because we need their feedback. Invariably they say of course, and usually say sure, use your best judgment. The doc says one thing, but what it means is "don't be stupid, reckless, or fukk me." Granted not all fit that but the point remains. I get you, and the trust may well fit into that category. But the question still remain as to why JBJ's merry band of party poopers or anyone else would risk getting screwed by leaking? Just the threat of potential enforcement would make me keep my mouth shut for everyone except maybe Kate Upton In the case of JBJ? I can only assume ignorance, in a desperate attempt to reverse the negative PR surrounding their candidacy. Really? What makes more sense to you, the JBJ group of millionaires and billionaires is too ignorant to follow a NDA regarding their billion dollar bid, or there is no leak? Edited August 4, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 90% of my Brandon issues disappear if he is relegated to non-football activities. Right now, he isn't. With new owner, best case for him is in a Ted Black type role with little or no involvement with on-the-field product. I think Pegula hires Todd France to run Football operations and he'll be judge over GM/HC. Sorry, Kelso, when I said retreads, I thought it was self-explanatory, I meant largely unsuccessful or NFL coaches that haven't been HC's in a while (i.e. Jauron, Gailey) We can get back to new ownership talk, I think we all are firmly entrenched in our positions on Mr. Brandon. Come clean...did Brandon run over your dog or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I get you, and the trust may well fit into that category. But the question still remain as to why JBJ's merry band of party poopers or anyone else would risk getting screwed by leaking? Just the threat of potential enforcement would make me keep my mouth shut for everyone except maybe Kate Upton Really? What makes more sense to you, the JBJ group of millionaires and billionaires is too ignorant to follow a NDA regarding their billion dollar bid, or there is no leak? I think that they knew that what they said would not get them in trouble. Its the same with Trump. They want their bids to drive the price up. As long as those groups don't say anything damaging they will be fine. It wasn't really risky. If they start leaking information about their books or lawsuits or whatever that will change things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I could forgive him for running over my dog, ruining the Bills on the other hand, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Others have said this before (I'm sure) but Jon Bon Blowme's attempt at acquiring the Bills now (and his little luncheon with Roger - notepad and pen in hand) may be his precursor to acquiring a team when the NFL expands. How in God's name this guy gets all the love from some NFL owner's and Roger is beyond me, but assuming he whiffs on the Bills purchase, he has the ear of the Commish and other owners that he wants a team. Honestly, he appears to be a spoiled brat that will cry and scream until he gets what he wants....I wish Mary Wilson would tell him to walk away and stop with the charade. As best as I can tell JBJ is doing this fir specific goals: 1. He knows he does not have the wealth (and certainly not the liquidity) to achieve his goal of NFL ownership. Thus, he has id'ed the Rogers crew as potential partners with not only the walth but no where near the fame he has to provide the needed cash, and allow him to meet (it will take him time to liquefy to the extent needed) to meet NFL requirements of a 30% stake. By forming a business partnership now with Rogers he gets to concretize his partnership with Rogers and it actually helps they have no chance of winning the bid. 2. As an official bid participant he gets a chance to get to know better and ingratiate himself to the NFL decisionmakers and again it does not matter whether they win the bid or not. JBJ is playing his game for his needs and winning the Bills team is neither necessary for accomplishing his goals. In fact, since the strategy which maximizes profits for the NFL is to BOTH retain the Buffalo franchise AND expand with a new Toronto franchise JBJ launching an unsuccessful bid fits well with NFL strategy and for the immediate bid pushes up the price Pegula/Golisano pays. As best I can tell things are moving along well for JBJ and most importantly for the true decisionmakers, the NFL (and the TV nets that pay the Bills). Pretty much bank on the Bills remaining here (and a new franchise being set up in Toronto ) because the NFL maximizes profits with franchises in BOTH Toronto and Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I could forgive him for running over my dog, ruining the Bills on the other hand, not so much. I get the frustration but picking someone out of a hat to blame is not the answer. I guess if anyone is to blame it's Ralph, rest his soul. He's was the one constant and we know he meddled in everything, even in the draft room. (Though apparently one of Ralph's picks was Marshawn Lynch so he wasn't always wrong.) Every year it was some combination of injuries and bad breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Wouldn't it be funny if the trust started making JBJ do things if he wants to stay in the race? or allow him the chance to earn a few extra bucks.... They want the bidders to remain not to sue them. If damage is done they will hold them accountable but they would much rather not lessen the bidding pool. I'd tell him he needs to perform a free concert at Thursday at the square before they allow him to move to the next round of bidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'd tell him he needs to perform a free concert at Thursday at the square before they allow him to move to the next round of bidding. Lol. That would be awesome. Plus there would be a decent chance we could simultaneously solve the Bills backup QB issues. If you can throw a bottle, can or rock with any real accuracy from 20-30 yards you can probably throw a football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'd tell him he needs to perform a free concert at Thursday at the square before they allow him to move to the next round of bidding. Ha ha, I'd make him clean my house, pick up my dry cleaning, etc... I would purposely do stuff to test his loyalty as well like the Rigma episode of Saved by the Bell or any kind of fraternity hazing. I would make him eat a banana out of Ted Rogers zipper while making eye contact the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) Lol. That would be awesome. Plus there would be a decent chance we could simultaneously solve the Bills backup QB issues. If you can throw a bottle, can or rock with any real accuracy from 20-30 yards you can probably throw a football. Back up? I was under the impression that we have a back up in EJ since tuel is the gamer. : rolls eyes: Edited August 4, 2014 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts