ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Sorry for the delay - - life got a little hectic for a while. Anyway, here's Darryl's analysis: [Note to mods - - neither the lease nor the relocation agreement is copyrighted, so there is no problem with quoting them extensively below] 1. From the Non-Relocation Agreement: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf The relevant language is in Section 3(b) - - I deleted extraneous language for clarity: That's still a lot of verbiage, even with extraneous language deleted, but here's the key part - - the phrase "except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph" clearly shows that there are some circumstances in which "clause (iv)" allows the Bills to attempt to move the Team. So what are those circumstances? Per "clause (iv)," it's when the "relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term." Note that the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" is capitalized. That's not a random grammatical error. Initial caps were used because the exact phrase "Non-Relocation Term" has a precise meaning defined in an earlier part of the Non-Relocation Agreement. Here's how paragraph 1® defines the phrase "Non-Relocation Term:" So the "Non-Relocation Term" doesn't end until the "Stadium Lease Expiration Date." That sounds good, right? The new stadium lease runs for 10 years and doesn't expire until 2023. But there's a problem - - the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" is also capitalized, and if you go back to the definitions section, you find that paragraph 1(y) defines the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" as follows: So if you plug the definition of the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" found in paragraph 1(y) into the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" found in paragraph 1®, the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" becomes: See the problem? The Non-Relocation Term doesn't necessarily end on July, 31, 2023 - - it could also end on "such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire." The language used in the Non-Relocation Agreement makes the "Non-Relocation Term" end whenever the stadium lease ends, and if the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the "Non-Relocation Term" also ends on July 31, 2020. That's important, because paragraph 3(b)(iv)(y) of the Non-Relocation Agreement allows the team to discuss relocation at any time so long as the relocation would actually take place after the "Non-Relocation Term" ends. I realize that the above analysis involves long and tedious reading of a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but this type of analysis of specifically defined terms is what lawyers and judges will do when they are trying to figure out exactly what conduct is prohibited by the Non-Relocation Agreement. Bottom line is that any move that would actually happen after the stadium lease ends (whether it ends by expiration of the full 10 year term or ends by the team exercising it's option to terminate the lease after 7 years), can be discussed by the Bills today. I realize this conclusion contradicts some media reports. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, the media reports are wrong.

And with that, TXBILLSFAN joins the pantheon of people who have just plain ruined it for everybody: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93druining.phtml Unfortunately, the SNL transcript will have to do, because the actual video appears blocked on YouTube. Hey TXBILLSFAN - - FWIW, both my Darryl brothers are far more upset with Bob Poochie than with you (if you read the SNL transcript you'll see why)

"He performs under the name Christ Bearer" Maybe now he'll change it to "Eunuch Corn" and apply for a government job in India: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10767555/Indias-Supreme-Court-creates-official-third-sex-for-eunuchs-and-transgenders.html Eunuch guru?

Hey Bandit, The Franchise Maintenance Covenants are in the Stadium Lease, which is a different document than the Non-Relocation Agreement. There is a separate link to each document in my post above. Not sure if that answers your question. When I have time, I'll post a further reply here explaining in more detail why Darryl thinks that the Non-Relocation Agreement doesn't survive past year 7 if the Bills exercise their year 7 option to terminate the Stadium Lease. It has to do with how specific phrases are defined in each of the two documents. But right now I gotta help both Darryls finish their taxes.

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find: Stadium Lease: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf Non-relocation Agreement: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts. So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it: Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years). I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted. It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7. True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7. Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for. The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020). The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end. Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it. Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says.

My younger brother Darryl noticed this: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rise-Planet-Apes-Sequel-Lands-Andy-Serkis-Seven-Figure-Deal-27704.html Spandex? Alzheimer's? Considers himself super-intelligent? Healthy seven figures? This could explain a lot. Who knew Caesar had cats?

In the Daniel Kaplan interview on WGR, Kaplan mentions that he interviewed Ralph in 2005. My friend Google turned up this 2005 article written by Kaplan: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/05/20050516/Other-News/In-Profile-Bills-Owner-Ralph-Wilson.aspx

I'd like to see the Bills stay in Buffalo, but this sequence of events worries me: 1. From 2006, before Ralph struck a deal for the "Bills-in-Toronto Series" (re-publishing a Toronto newspaper article that I could not find a direct link to): http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/toronto-seeks-nfl-team-752684/ 2. From 11/24/13: http://www.theglobea...rticle15581107/ 3. Less than 10 days ago: http://www.wgrz.com/...oronto/6929179/ Of course, a sketchy preliminary outline of stadium plans could be drawn up on a shoestring budget without any sort of encouragement from the NFL, and without any Rogers family member's commitment to help finance anything. But the sequence of events does make me wonder if Tanenbaum is trying to put info together and rally support for an eventual bid by Toronto people.

He thinks I'm an idiot, but I think he's a moron - - so we're about even.

Wayne Cubed and mannc: The language that you folks are trying to interpret says Mary Wilson is the "controlling owner," but doesn't specify in what sense it is using the word "owner" - - my brother Darryl says it can be two different things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law Darryl doesn't know which meaning of "owner" was intended in the language you've been discussing because the exact language used is ambiguous. It would be consistent with earlier media reports about the team being placed in a trust, however, if Mary Wilson is now an "equitable owner" (sometimes called a "beneficial owner") because she is a beneficiary of the trust with a vested interest in the proceeds of any future sale of the team.

My youngest brother Darryl claims he got rich writing off the interest he paid on an interest-free loan, so I suppose it could happen.

Brandon Lee died during filming, so I don't think he's gonna be much help.

So if the unionized scholarship athletes strike, and the walk-ons understandably want their best chance to actually play, are the walk-ons scabs? That's gotta be great for team unity. http://www.faegrebd.com/21351 Full text of the NLRB ruling: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-nlrb-northwestern-football-union-ruling-20140326,0,2025939.htmlpage

Don't have a link, but reminds me of another story about a US prisoner who had his middle finger extended in a propaganda photo. His captors either didn't see it or more likely just didn't realize the significance. Was it the Pueblo spy ship incident with N. Korea?

I don't see anything in the video that allows anyone to say for sure whether, after he passed her the first time, (1) she sped up, or (2) he slowed down. Do you? Wouldn't both scenarios look exactly the same on the video? Because she knows she's got the video camera rolling, seems like she would be likely to maintain constant speed and do nothing confrontational that the camera would show.

About a week old, but belongs in this thread: http://www.wgrz.com/story/sports/nfl/bills/2014/03/26/group-working-to-bring-nfl-to-toronto/6929179/

I've read the first 125 posts in this thread and watched the video several times. Everybody is assuming that the totality of the interaction between these drivers is shown on the video. That seems unlikely. It takes time to go from driving along minding your own business, to video recording somebody behind you. Maybe she honestly thought that nobody should be going faster in the rainy conditions than she was driving, regardless of the speed limit, and got frustrated watching other drivers zoom by her, and decided to play traffic cop by forcing everyone to slow down to the speed of a commercial truck in the right hand lane. For all we know, she held him up for miles BEFORE he started tailgating. The video STARTS with him already on her bumper - - we just don't know how long she kept him back there to start with, although it's likely that whenever he started to tailgate it was only THEN that she decided to start making the video and KEPT him back there so that she could record the type of aggressive behavior he had by then started to show. You can also be certain that IF she was driving badly in any fashion BEFORE she decided to video things, her behavior changed when she turned the video camera on. You can't assume that she was driving the same way BEFORE she turned the camera on as she was AFTER she turned the camera on. We also don't know if she flipped him off as he passed her on the right the first time, which might explain why a guy trying to pass her for a while goes by on the right, only to wind up farther back again. He only flipped her off the SECOND time he was side-by-side with her in the right hand lane. If she did nothing to goad him, and he's a hothead, how come he didn't flip her off the first time he went by? Maybe the reason the "redneck" wasn't perfectly centered in the frame as he was flipping her off (even though every other shot is centered), is because by then they were both flipping the bird at each other. I think there might be a lot more to the interaction than what the camera showed. We also don't know if both drivers got past the first commercial truck because the commercial truck decided to slow down. I have personally been in the right lane minding my own business on a freeway at a steady speed, when a car in the left lane shadowed me to stop a third car from being able to get by. When I realized what was happening, I slowed down to avoid being involved in their dispute. For all we know, that's what the right lane commercial trucker did in this video. Main point being, there's a lot we don't know. I'm especially suspicious because of the fact that the "redneck" didn't flip her off the first time he went by her.

1. Hold tryouts among season ticket holders for best pre-meditated TD celebration. The next time Stevie Johnson scores a TD, push the winner out on the field, and have a security guard handcuff Stevie and escort him back to the bench while the winning season ticket holder goes nuts on the field. 2. Have a contest for who can make the best "in-your-face" home video of our AFC East rivals getting whipped. Plane crashes for the Jets, dolphins ensnared in nets, whatever. One winner for each AFC East rival gets his video displayed on the big screen at half time of the home game against that team. 3. Extra prize for the best Patriots-related anti-video. Winner gets to ride in a military jet during the fly-over at the next year's home opener, and parachute onto the field. 4. Figure out how to hold an auction from fans' cell phones at half-time of the home opener this year, with bidding displayed on the big screen as the auction progresses. Winner gets to shoot Billy Buffalo at mid-field just before the second half kick-off and end the playoff curse that started around the time that Billy Buffalo showed up. All proceeds to benefit Indian reservations of tribes that used to be able to hunt buffalo. I would also like to know where to send the half-assed, sarcastic suggestions, 'cause I've got a few.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10695272/northwestern-wildcats-union-representatives-head-congress

Lots of speculation in this "article" about Canada's announced plan to bid for the 2026 World Cup, including speculation about building an 80,000 seat stadium in Toronto: http://soccerly.com/article/Kubani/the-real-goal-for-toronto-world-cup-2026 What I can't figure out, is whether the artist's conception of that new Toronto stadium shown in the following link is some soccer fan's wet dream, or part of some sort of extremely preliminary draft of something created by the Canadian Soccer Association in hopes of garnering governmental support for a future formal 2026 World Cup bid: http://imgur.com/a/5ZfCR The stadium cost estimates seem ridiculously low, so I'm leaning toward the wet dream theory. The AP has confirmed, however, that the Canadian Soccer Association does indeed plan to bid on the 2026 World Cup, which would apparently require more large stadium capacity than Canada currently has: http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-plans-bid-host-2026-world-cup So even if the current artist's conception of the 80,000 seat Toronto stadium is a soccer fan's wet dream, there may be some serious future discussion about including a proposed big Toronto stadium in an eventual formal 2026 World Cup bid. Worth watching.

What happens next? Here's something I didn't know until fairly recently - - when a new owner buys a sports team (including but not limited to the Bills), he gets to reduce his reported profits, for income tax purposes, by something known as the roster depletion allowance (the "RDA.") It's a non-cash expense that potentially allows the new owner to claim paper losses for the first 15 years even if the business is cash flow positive. If you are familiar with real estate investing, it works much like depreciation for apartment building owners, except that the sports team owner can write off the entire purchase price of his franchise over just 15 years. So if John Doe buys the Bills for say $900 million, he gets to claim ($900M/15) = $60 million as a roster depreciation allowance expense every year for 15 years. That is above and beyond his deduction of the team's total annual salary as a business expense that also reduces his taxable profits (just like any other business can deduct the salary of its employees as a business expense). Note that Ralph hasn't been able to claim any RDA expenses for many years, because he owned the team for so long. The Bills are analogous to a fully depreciated apartment building in Ralph's hands - - in that they no longer generated any depreciation expense for income tax purposes. But once that apartment building or the Bills are sold, the new owner can start claiming depreciation expenses based on the new purchase price. So don't shed too many tears when the new owner claims he can't make a sufficient profit in Buffalo because he had to borrow some money for part of the team's purchase price or to make stadium improvements. Given the above assumption of a $900 million purchase price, the new owner could potentially put up to $60 million a year in his pocket for 15 years, and pay absolutely zero income taxes during that time. Explanations of how the RDA works - - as a taxpayer, read 'em and weep: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-sox-observer/2012/06/the-hustler-bill-veeck-and-roster-depreciation-allowance/ http://business.time.com/2012/03/09/why-1-5-billion-for-the-dodgers-might-turn-out-to-be-a-bargain/

Hey, obtuse is right up Darryl's alley. Darryl says sometimes the law is an a$$, but he also says here's a few things you might want to think about: 1. If you look at this from the County's perspective, the County wants to do whatever it can to make sure that it doesn't spend big $ to remodel the existing stadium only to have some new owner try to move the Bills a short time later. It was probably the County's intent to "to hinder if not outright prevent the bills from moving for 7 years." While Ralph agreed to those terms, he may have simply viewed it as the cost of getting the County/state to pay for stadium improvements, rather than really having a goal of locking some future owner of the team to the Buffalo area for 7 years. 2. If you're the County, you want to make sure that the COUNTY has the right to complain in court if the team tries to move in less than 7 years. While the County might like it if Ralph's estate planning included efforts to keep the Bills in Buffalo, it's not clear to Darryl how the County would have standing to complain in court if those provisions weren't followed. And Ralph may have felt that his estate planning arrangements were none of the County's business - - he certainly didn't seem to like to talk about it publicly (not criticizing, just observing). 3. It may seem convoluted because it's a "belts and suspenders" approach. That's always gonna seem more complicated than belts alone or suspenders alone. When you add in the legal jargon communication barrier, because "belts" are one legal concept with $5 words, and "suspenders" are a different legal concept with different $5 words, it gets "convoluted" pretty fast. 4. Think about what you would ask for in Court if you were the County and the Bills were threatening to move. Darryl thinks it's obvious that what the County really wants is a court order preventing the team from moving. That would be a much better solution for the County than letting the Bills move but requiring them to reimburse the County for what it spent on stadium improvements. But good lawyers (and even some bad ones) plan for foreseeable contingencies. If it turns out you can't get the injunction for some reason, you would still like to get back the money that you spent on stadium improvements. So you add in the liquidated damages provision, too. Belts AND suspenders (and pulleys and hover craft and kites and blimps and anything else the County can think of to hold up trousers and protect a 9 figure investment). 5. If you want a better understanding of how liquidated damages work in the context of a NY lease, read this: http://www.rosenbergestis.com/In-the-News/LJN-The-Enforceability-of-Liquidated-Damages-060112.pdf 6. If you're interested in how a liquidated damages provision can be used in the context of a NY employment contract, read this: http://www.dglaw.com/images_user/newsalerts/Litigation_LiquidatedDamagesClauses.pdf 7. This was a pretty convoluted post, but I can't help it if Darryl is wordy. Like he says, sometimes the law is an a$$. But he's a moron.

Yeah, and neither one's very bright (runs in the family) - - but they are Bills fans.

My oldest brother Darryl might be able to shed a little light on a few things discussed in this thread. He says: 1. Regarding the lease language that states - - "the Parties acknowledge and agree that there exists no adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce this Agreement against the Bills . . ." If the County eventually finds itself in a position where it wants to get an injunction to keep the Bills from moving, one of the things it has to prove in court is that it has no adequate "legal" remedy. A party that wins a court case can get various types of remedies from the court - - all are categorized as either "legal" or "equitable." To oversimplify, an award of money is a "legal" remedy, while a court order called an injunction that prohibits the Bills from moving is one example of an "equitable" remedy. There is a generally applicable rule that to prove you are entitled to get an injunction, you have to show that you can't be made entirely whole by an award of money instead. That's why the County demanded a term in the lease stating that all parties to the lease agree that the County has "no adequate remedy at law" (or words to that effect) if the Bills breach the lease and move. The County wants that language in the lease so that they can try to keep the Bills from arguing in any future court proceeding that the County can be made entirely whole by an award of money damages. The lease language is actually intended to HELP the County get a future injunction if the Bills try to move. 2. While most terms that parties voluntarily agree upon in a written contract or lease are enforceable, there are some terms that courts won't enforce even if all parties voluntarily agreed to them. Agreements on an amount of "liquidated damages" can fall in this category of unenforceable terms if the parties pick an amount that is unreasonable given the facts known to the parties at the time the agreement was first made. If the $400 million is too large an amount for the damages that the County might really be expected to suffer if the Bills broke the lease and moved, the courts would find it to be an unenforceable "penalty." In that scenario, rather than entering a $400 million judgment against the Bills in favor of the County merely because the parties agreed on that number in advance, the courts would require the County to prove the amount of financial damage, if any, that the Bills caused the County to suffer by breaking the lease and moving. Then again, Darryl's a bit of a moron, and you've never met him - - so I'd be skeptical.