Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Argos are gone before they add the grass so they would just have to share with the Jays (and coming from a Jays fan it painsme to say it, but they would only have to share for the month of September) As a fellow Jays fan I feel your pain CBF
mattsox Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Why? Buffalo, Because there is more politicians than a plan of action. It would cost alot of money to put a stadium in the City. They'd have to rebuild alot of infrastructure to make it work. Not saying it can't be done, but this is Buffalo. Where's the new Peace Bridge??? Toronto: Because their stadium is old. The NFL owners won't allow the an NFL team to play in Rogers Centre without a plan in place to build a new Stadium in Toronto. I don't see them having one as of yet.
thebandit27 Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Buffalo, Because there is more politicians than a plan of action. It would cost alot of money to put a stadium in the City. They'd have to rebuild alot of infrastructure to make it work. Not saying it can't be done, but this is Buffalo. Where's the new Peace Bridge??? Toronto: Because their stadium is old. The NFL owners won't allow the an NFL team to play in Rogers Centre without a plan in place to build a new Stadium in Toronto. I don't see them having one as of yet. I can't speak to Toronto, but doesn't all of the new construction downtown in the last 5 years make you a bit more optimistic?
jimmy10 Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Once again, Rogers Centre is right out as a potential landing site, temporary or otherwise. Grass gets installed in 2018. They will not allow football to be played on that surface. http://m.thestar.com/#!/sportsnews/redirect/a75b72c1574f8aa4791b464909b1c364
Hplarrm Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 You ask where is the Peace Bridge apparently as an example of why this region cannot have good things. Perhaps this is true in general, but you need to use some other example other than the failure to reach agreement to expand the Peace Bridge as some inherent flaw in WNY decision-making. There are several reasons why the Peace Bridge deal has failed to be done. Among them are: 1. The Peace Bridge expansion plans which is being fostered by the Peace Bridge Authority (PBA) does a lot to benefit the holders of PBA bonds (these bonds are available on the free market as an investment tool and holders can as easily be living in NYC, Russia, or wherever as here in WNY. However, the expansion plans actually are likely to deliver little financial benefit to WNY. In general, increased truck traffic on the Peace Bridge delivers little economic benefit to WNY beyond increased sales of Slim Jims and other snacks to truckers who may stop to take a whiz or buy enough gas to get across the Bridge. If you are a user of the bridge, you care most about where the product is manufactured and where the product is sold. Everything else in between needs to be a speed bump for you at most. The Niagara river however is a chokepoint and for folks transiting from one side of the border to the other it is reasonable to them to pay the government of the country a reasonable tariff for selling goods manufactured in another country across the border. They are also willing to pay a toll the trolls who run the bridge. tunnel or ferry or whatever that gets them past the chokepoint or barrier the Niagara River provides. If I am a driver from a factory in Canada going to make a sell in the US or manufactured in the US and being sold in Canada, I have zero interest in stopping in WNY, staying in a hotel in WNY or adding anything to its economy beside maybe buying a porn tape to watch on my VCR while I cook my dinner in the microwave I have in the sleeping compartment of my truck. An expanded Peace Bridge leaves nothing in WNY besides the air pollution left on the used to be perfect neighborhoods near the bridge. Some local officials are happy to sing the praises of an expanded bridge to the local economy, but it appears on the face of it that these elected officials are more motivated by the campaign donations they are getting from rich Peace Bridge bondholders. The Peace Bridge expansion has failed mostly because it hurts WNY more than it helps and because the PBA is trying to sell this not by really interacting with the community but instead buying enough (but as few as possible) elected officials to get this done. It is not because any inherent problem (which might or might not exist) you seem to site. Buffalo, Because there is more politicians than a plan of action. It would cost alot of money to put a stadium in the City. They'd have to rebuild alot of infrastructure to make it work. Not saying it can't be done, but this is Buffalo. Where's the new Peace Bridge??? Toronto: Because their stadium is old. The NFL owners won't allow the an NFL team to play in Rogers Centre without a plan in place to build a new Stadium in Toronto. I don't see them having one as of yet.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) 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. . . . 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: " . . . during the Non-Relocation Term . . . the Bills shall not: (i) . . . (ii) . . . attempt to . . . move the Team except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph . . . (iii) sell . . . or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills' knowledge, has an intention to . . . move the Team during the Non- Relocation Term . . . (iv) (A) . . . (B) . . . © . . . (D) otherwise attempt to cause the playing of Games at a location other than the Stadium except . . . (y) to the extent that the relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term; (v) . . . or (vi) enter into any . . . agreement to . . . transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills' knowledge, intends to . . . move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." 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:" ® Non-Relocation Term: The term of this Agreement, beginning on July 31, 2013, and ending on the Stadium Lease Expiration Date. 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: (y) Stadium Lease Expiration Date: July 31, 2023, or such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire. 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: ® Non-Relocation Term: The term of this Agreement, beginning on July 31, 2013, and ending on July 31, 2023, or such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire. 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. Edited April 25, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
thebandit27 Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 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. Good breakdown...thank the Darryls for me! Makes me wonder if a legal battle would focus on the term "expiration" vs "termination", since it's the latter that was used for the $28M clause. I mean, I don't think any of it will come into play, but I just wonder if the County would have some juice based on that small but significant difference.
Recommended Posts