Report: lease buyout does not exist

[Last Guy on the Bench]

If I understand this correctly, the 400 million is due by the team to the city/county/state (not sure which) if the team wins a nonperformance battle against the city/county/state.

 

If the team just up and leaves the 400 million is not pertinent. The team would be in breach of contract and the city/county/state could sue the team for whatever it wanted to. Billions if they could make the case for those kinds of damages.

 

Also, as others have said, the NFL is unlikely to approve a move involving a straight up breach of contract (which is different than a negotiated buyout clause).

 

So I read this as extremely good news.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Last Guy on the Bench

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It can't get "overturned".

 

We're dealing in hypotheticals here, including that a of a court over-riding the lease.

[thebandit27]

And then what? These owners are billionaires.

 

Billionaires get what they want. Well, because they're billionaires. Think the state/county are going to be able to drag out a fight indefinitely?

 

I'm not so sure =/

 

They don't have to drag it out indefinitely...if relocation is enjoined, they can't go...the team could appeal, but they have to win.

 

There is a link to a PDF file on the county execs site that spells out the non-relocation agreement for anyone interested. I am no lawyer but it looks to me like a "non-relocation default" is certainly possible. But I could be 100% wrong.

 

Key phrase:

if equitable relief is not granted by a court of competent jurisdiction for any reason, or is otherwise unavailable

 

In other words: a court can grant the County injunctive relief from relocation.

 

If I understand this correctly, the 400 million is due by the team to the city/county/state (not sure which) if the team wins a nonperformance battle against the city/county/state.

 

If the team just up and leaves the 400 million is not pertinent. The team would be in breach of contract and the city/county/state could sue the team for whatever it wanted to. Billions if they could make the case for those kinds of damages.

 

Also, as others have said, the NFL is unlikely to approve a move involving a straight up breach of contract (which is different than a negotiated buyout clause).

 

So I read this as extremely good news.

 

Correct on all counts

[The Wiz]

I'm still curious what this random 7th year window for 28 million is? Anyone have a clue why after 7 years there is a time frame that the team can be relocated and the contract can be broken?

[thebandit27]

I'm still curious what this random 7th year window for 28 million is? Anyone have a clue why after 7 years there is a time frame that the team can be relocated and the contract can be broken?

 

I'm speculating now, but my thought is that it could be a window for a new stadium

[papazoid]

ralph for sainthood

[GG]

I don't know for certain, but in reading the agreement, it clearly states that the county and state have no legal standing to prevent the Bills from moving if the team decided to do so:

 

 

Therefore, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there exists no adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce this Agreement against the Bills, and that equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement notwithstanding the provisions for liquidated damages provided elsewhere in this Section 5

 

So I don't know what Ganis is referring to, but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team, but then the state & county will go after them, and the minimum compensation will be $400 million.

[BigBuff423]

Great news...and hopefully, this will sign the death knell of all the "BILLS are as good as gone!" B.S. that runs rampant on this board...

[thebandit27]

I don't know for certain, but in reading the agreement, it clearly states that the county and state have no legal standing to prevent the Bills from moving if the team decided to do so:

 

 

 

 

So I don't know what Ganis is referring to, but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team, but then the state & county will go after them, and the minimum compensation will be $400 million.

 

It's right in there:

 

equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement

 

The Bills can seek an injunction to enforce the Agreement; the bold that you highlight is standard boiler plate language to say that there is no specific written law governing how the Agreement would be enforced against the party breaching the contract.

[CodeMonkey]

I don't know for certain, but in reading the agreement, it clearly states that the county and state have no legal standing to prevent the Bills from moving if the team decided to do so:

So I don't know what Ganis is referring to, but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team, but then the state & county will go after them, and the minimum compensation will be $400 million.

I tend to agree with you, but I am not fluent in legalese. However as someone mentioned above, paying the $400 mil as a penalty for being in breach of contract is very different than paying the money as part of a buy-out clause ... at least as far as public relations goes. But somehow I doubt if the Bills move from Buffalo the NFL will care much about what Buffalo fans think, and the rest of the public probably won't care.

 

It's right in there:

 

equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement

 

The Bills can seek an injunction to enforce the Agreement; the bold that you highlight is standard boiler plate language to say that there is no specific written law governing how the Agreement would be enforced against the party breaching the contract.

I think you mean the county?

[BigBuff423]

I don't know for certain, but in reading the agreement, it clearly states that the county and state have no legal standing to prevent the Bills from moving if the team decided to do so:

 

 

 

 

So I don't know what Ganis is referring to, but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team, but then the state & county will go after them, and the minimum compensation will be $400 million.

 

NFL would have to approve that move and given the lease, that ain't happenin'....NFL is in the business of doing good business, and first question of a prospective owner formulated by the NFL would be, "What are your plans regarding the Franchise and it's location / stadium concerns?"...if it's "moving" the NFL will know straight-away and how to address it...

[GG]

It's right in there:

 

equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement

 

The Bills can seek an injunction to enforce the Agreement; the bold that you highlight is standard boiler plate language to say that there is no specific written law governing how the Agreement would be enforced against the party breaching the contract.

 

Exactly, because there's no law or regulation requiring the Bills to stay, the state & county would seek an injunction to force them to stay, but I'm not aware of cases where the courts forced a party to stay at a location if they wanted to move. There obviously is a penalty to breaking a contract, but it would be an interesting case if the courts forced the team to remain for the remainder of the lease.

 

NFL would have to approve that move and given the lease, that ain't happenin'....NFL is in the business of doing good business, and first question of a prospective owner formulated by the NFL would be, "What are your plans regarding the Franchise and it's location / stadium concerns?"...if it's "moving" the NFL will know straight-away and how to address it...

 

That is a separate issue.

[Buftex]

I am probably not understanding any of this correctly. But it almost sounds as though, while the lease keeps the Bills in Buffalo for another 7 years, it also kind of discourages any local ownership group from kicking the tires on the franchise, for at least a couple of years. Say, a year from now, Terry Pegula (just using him as an example) decides he is interested in buying the franchise...he has to wait until when? Now, worst case scenario (I am a Bills fan after all), the next 7 seasons go about the same as the last 15. How long will fans have to put up or shut up with that, all while having the immediate future of the team as murky as ever. Assuming the current NFL owners, collectively, are a bunch of greedy pricks, the closer to that 7 years for the sale, the better from their POV...if fan interest declines as the losses pile up, they can just say that the team wasn't getting the support any longer, and justify uprooting them...for wherever...

 

Sorry, don't want to assume the worst... I don't know if my nerves can take another 4 or 5 years of wondering what the future fo the team is...I usually try to stay away from these threads...too depressing.

[BigBuff423]

Exactly, because there's no law or regulation requiring the Bills to stay, the state & county would seek an injunction to force them to stay, but I'm not aware of cases where the courts forced a party to stay at a location if they wanted to move. There obviously is a penalty to breaking a contract, but it would be an interesting case if the courts forced the team to remain for the remainder of the lease.

 

 

 

That is a separate issue.

 

Um, if I understand you correctly, you said, "but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team", which my response was to move a team the NFL has to approve it, BEFORE the BILLS or anyone else would need to seek an injunction...moving a team would imply the NFL approved it, otherwise the owner is just trying to hire some guys to spray paint the NFL logo on a fake stadium no one will be going to, because, um...there would be no NFL games there....

[thebandit27]

I tend to agree with you, but I am not fluent in legalese. However as someone mentioned above, paying the $400 mil as a penalty for being in breach of contract is very different than paying the money as part of a buy-out clause ... at least as far as public relations goes. But somehow I doubt if the Bills move from Buffalo the NFL will care much about what Buffalo fans think, and the rest of the public probably won't care.

 

 

I think you mean the county?

 

Duh, oops ...yes...the County...thank you

 

Exactly, because there's no law or regulation requiring the Bills to stay, the state & county would seek an injunction to force them to stay, but I'm not aware of cases where the courts forced a party to stay at a location if they wanted to move. There obviously is a penalty to breaking a contract, but it would be an interesting case if the courts forced the team to remain for the remainder of the lease.

 

The way the terms of the No Relo are written, it sounds an awful lot like the breach of contract would give the County quite a strong bid for an injunction...of course, it's no guarantee I suppose.

 

Either way, I think we're mulling over minutiae that will never come into play.

[FLFan]

total nonsense

 

http://www2.erie.gov...s-stadium-lease

Apparently the "source" failed to read the entire agreement. I wish people would stop linking this nitwit to the board.

[thebandit27]

I am probably not understanding any of this correctly. But it almost sounds as though, while the lease keeps the Bills in Buffalo for another 7 years, it also kind of discourages any local ownership group from kicking the tires on the franchise, for at least a couple of years. Say, a year from now, Terry Pegula (just using him as an example) decides he is interested in buying the franchise...he has to wait until when? Now, worst case scenario (I am a Bills fan after all), the next 7 seasons go about the same as the last 15. How long will fans have to put up or shut up with that, all while having the immediate future of the team as murky as ever. Assuming the current NFL owners, collectively, are a bunch of greedy pricks, the closer to that 7 years for the sale, the better from their POV...if fan interest declines as the losses pile up, they can just say that the team wasn't getting the support any longer, and justify uprooting them...for wherever...

 

Sorry, don't want to assume the worst... I don't know if my nerves can take another 4 or 5 years of wondering what the future fo the team is...I usually try to stay away from these threads...too depressing.

 

I didn't read it that way at all...the team can be sold to someone at any time, provided that they make clear their intention to keep the team in Buffalo.

 

Apparently the "source" failed to read the entire agreement. I wish people would stop linking this nitwit to the board.

 

No, he didn't...this has been debated rather thoroughly here

[FLFan]

I don't know for certain, but in reading the agreement, it clearly states that the county and state have no legal standing to prevent the Bills from moving if the team decided to do so:

 

 

 

 

So I don't know what Ganis is referring to, but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team, but then the state & county will go after them, and the minimum compensation will be $400 million.

This is exactly correct.

[GG]

Um, if I understand you correctly, you said, "but my read is that the new owner can try to move the team", which my response was to move a team the NFL has to approve it, BEFORE the BILLS or anyone else would need to seek an injunction...moving a team would imply the NFL approved it, otherwise the owner is just trying to hire some guys to spray paint the NFL logo on a fake stadium no one will be going to, because, um...there would be no NFL games there....

 

Granted we're making a lot of assumptions, but Al Davis's suits and the American Needle rulings cloud the situation a bit with the ironclad nature of the lease. I can envision a scenario, where a new owner is approved by the league and a year later he decides to move the team, against the league's and county's wishes. It's not a foregone conclusion that the league can stop the owner at that point, and the county's remedy would be to seek an injunction, which I'm not sure the courts would grant.

 

Now, that's a lot of assumptions and they're implausible, but they are very much possible.

[BigBuff423]

I didn't read it that way at all...the team can be sold to someone at any time, provided that they make clear their intention to keep the team in Buffalo.

 

 

 

No, he didn't...this has been debated rather thoroughly here

 

To your first point, exactly...once all the debris has settled, an owner can apply to the NFL to buy the BILLS and so long as there are no issues of relocation, the NFL owners vote to accept or decline the new ownership and I'm sure the primary issue would be new stadium. As long as the prospective new owner is willing to pony up the dough and has a good plan for a new stadium, can't see the owners standing in the way, for a variety of reasons...not all of them b/c they think it's good for Buffalo or the NFL, but because it's good for THEM and THEIR team...IMO