HalftimeAdjustment
-
Posts
3,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HalftimeAdjustment
-
-
-
Halftime - do you have a link or more specifics to support your first statement above?
See this link: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf
Section 3 (b) subsection (iv) ©... upon re-reading this, it appears that they can discuss relocation under 2 conditions... either during arbitration hearings to terminate the lease, or if the relocation would take effect after the end of the term. So they can discuss relocation with someone who wants to relocate them after 7 or 10 years.
Subject to the provisions of Section 2(b), during the Non-Relocation Term,
without the prior written consent of the County and the ECSC, which consent shall be within the sole and
absolute discretion of each of the County and the ECSC, the Bills shall not: (i) apply to the NFL for, or
otherwise seek, approval to allow the Team to play any Games during the Non-Relocation Term
anywhere other than the Stadium; (ii) relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team (or attempt to
relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph) to a
location other than the Stadium; (iii) sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the
Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-
Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium; (iv) (A) entertain any offer or proposal to relocate
the Team to a location other than the Stadium, (B) solicit an offer or proposal from any Person to enter
into discussions regarding moving the Team to a location other than the Stadium, © enter into
negotiations or agreements with third parties concerning the relocation of the Team to a location other
than the Stadium, or (D) otherwise attempt to cause the playing of Games at a location other than the
Stadium except in the case of clause (A), (B), © and/or (D) above, (x) during the pendency of an
arbitration proceeding in which the Bills are seeking to terminate the Stadium Lease in accordance with
its terms or (y) to the extent that the relocation or other action described in such clause would first take
effect after the Non-Relocation Term;
-
The terms of the lease also appear to prevent the Bills from engaging in talks with groups trying to get them to play elsewhere, during the no-move period. That is interesting.
As far as the 6-year no move period not helping Buffalo, it can also be viewed as a 6 year window for other teams to get a jump on moving into LA and closing off that route. Toronto is a bigger problem.
-
Here's my theory on the plan. The lock-in lease was effectively a gift to give us a shot at keeping the team. People are saying the sooner the team is sold, the better... Not necessarily. The team is not staying after 2019 regardless of ownership group, unless the stadium issue is resolved. Imagine if the team was sold tomorrow. The new ownership would either lack leverage (if perceived as committed to stay no matter what) OR they would be under constant suspicion of dragging on negotiations to eventually break the lease. What if, instead, the trust immediately tries to negotiate a "contingent" stadium deal. If the trust arranges a plan with county/state support to have a stadium in place, it will do 2 things: 1) it will be more attractive to potential owners who just do not want the headache of a move and 2) it will increase the in-place valuation of the team, reducing the financial case for moving. Oh and the trust could claim they increased the team's value, per their duty. It just requires that elected officials get creative and work on a deal knowing that it is not binding and won't be final but is still worth the effort. Main downside is the new owner could ask for a better dea. Unlikely this will work out but it could happen.
-
said he wanted to be on a super bowl contending team.
that pretty much excludes buffalo.
You realize they have to say that, in order to prove their competitive fire to potential employers, right?
-
For all of the people who say "No safety is worth $10M/year", do you believe that:
A) No NFL franchise will actually pay Byrd $10M/year, so the Bills would be suckers to do so; OR
B) Another NFL franchise will actually pay Byrd $10M/year, and that franchise has a less effective front office than the Buffalo Bills, and that franchise will fare worse long-term than Buffalo?
I'm curious if people will state their positions now. Obviously if you believe Byrd IS worth $10M/year, there is no need to take a position on this question.
-
So it's pretty sad that if an additional playoff spot had been in effect every year from 2000 onward... we still wouldn't have made the playoffs. In 2004 we would have tied for the last spot but presumably lost the tiebreaker.
-
Well, the Giants owner ruled out Green Bay as a location... but that was the "only" place he ruled out.
So, I guess we need a new stadium and mega hotel in Buffalo to land a Super Bowl in say 12-15 years. Indianapolis did a lot of hotel building in the run up to their SB hosting.
If you don't think this is a "lure" that will be used to try for a new stadium in cold weather cities... I don't know what is.
-
There would still be unquoted sources... I have to wonder what is going on?
Who are there veteran leaders? Look at their dang QB...
Wonder if the silence has anything to do with this. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/05/report-coaches-wanted-incognito-to-toughen-up-martin/related/
-
How does TO end up in this group? He had a big mouth but did not try to physically or mentally hurt people either on or off the field.
I tried but failed to sort of show a sliding scale of badness. I should have put TO on the far right (below Haynesworth). He didn't hurt people but he was perceived as a big enough "jerk" to become toxic to most team through his statements and behavior.
Not suggesting TO and OJ should be grouped.
-
Bad varies in severity.
This is true. Lawrence Phillips has Incognito beat. So does OJ Simpson. And Jovan Belcher... I could go on. However, Incognito may have the edge on, for example, Terell Owens or Albert Haynesworth.
-
Nickell's size was an issue there.
-
way to go White! Thanks!
That last one was blatant face to face. League will fine. Earlier one was glancing.
-
Eli Manning. Just before the Giants got hot and won the Superbowl (first time), I declared something to the effect of "Lets face it, he sucks." Oops.
-
good player, no wall
He's definitely getting to the Wall. Compare to any other player during his time here.
-
Time to accept it. The Bills are just not very good.
-
This has been explained and re-explained. Like it or not, they were handcuffed with roster limitations with all the DB injuries and carrying 2 kickers and coudn't have 3 QBs on the active roster. At the time, they didn't feel it was needed to flip Tuel to the PS and Lewis to the 53. They learned the hard way. That said, we have no idea what Lewis woud have done in the Browns game but since he used to be on the Browns for 2 years, we can surmise he would have been had more success against the defense.
Can anyone say that arranging the QBs differently on the roster or signing a different re-tread would have resulted in any difference in the W-L record? Possibly the Cleveland game... maybe, maybe not.
-
Do we get an OT thread?
-
Will be a catch on replay but then holding.
-
Whatever happens... Thad is more accurate deep than EJ.
-
Moorman has been the player of the game for the Bills. Welcome back, Brian.
Too bad his presence lulled everyone else to sleep. "We can rest easy and put this in out punter's hands."
-
a td here and it is only a 7 point game
How about a weak looking 3-and-out instead? Time to see Moorman again.
-
What a difference having Jarius Byrd in there today.
He's not helping his trade or contract value.
-
It was a mistake playing Gilmore.
Donald Trump asked to invest in the Bills
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
A new owner would be smart to say they would strongly prefer to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but that long term it would depend on progress in the stadium working group. This allows them to negotiate on the amount of subsidies. We don't know how much the state and county are willing to kick in for a new stadium, but we know that number is not $0 (since they kicked in money for the improvements in the last lease). The higher that number is the better chance we have to keep the Bills. You may feel taxpayers should not pay, but objectively the more money put up by NYS the greater the chance the Bills stay. Since Trump already said he would keep them here I am guessing he is not really serious but just looking for good PR.