Report: agreement forbids sale to an owner who would relocate

[CSBill]

GOOD!!!!

 

What has Toronto done over the past five years to even think they deserve to get an NFL team? With a smaller stadium, they couldn't sell out the games, the atmosphere was pathetic, and it just didn't work! . . . even if a new owner could move a team there, why would you want to?

[GaryPinC]

Biggest thing to me that is being minimized is the fact that Erie County and the publicly appointed Stadium commission have to sign off on any transfer of ownership. Also the NFL, of course. But, these two public entities can block the sale of the team. Bills are still allowed to play one regular season game in Toronto or alternate location and one preseason game every other year. Also if the NFL selects them for an alternate location game. Other than if the stadium has a physical problem prohibiting full seating or playing of a game, every other game HAS to be played at the Ralph.

 

Mr. Wilson did the area a huge favor with this. I think the cheaper buy-out provision in year seven is meant for if the team wants to relocate out of Erie County but within Western NY and Erie County refuses to sign off on it.

[Kellyto83TD]

What an irrepressible !@#$. The Non-Relocation Agreement specifically refers to not relocating "from the Stadium"--- ie, Ralph Wilson Stadium. Unless the Ralph is physically transported to Ontario, it doesn't matter a lick that Toronto is 90 miles away from Buffalo--- page 6, Article 3 (b):

 

http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf

 

Maybe Tim Graham should actually read it.

 

Ok then why are they working on a new stadium? They can't move into it according to you. BTW a great attorney or entire law firm if need be can break the entire thing. That said I think its Trump and he is going to keep them here

[dave mcbride]

Most people on TBD will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the Non-Relocation Agreement and stadium lease actually say. If anybody actually cares what the Non-Relocation Agreement actually says, here's my brother Darryl's analysis:

 

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 (full text is in the link):

 

 

 

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. If the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the stadium lease and the "Non-Relocation Term" both end 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, as well as the John Kryk blog that the OP linked to. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, portions of the media reports and portions of John Kryk's blog piece are wrong.

 

It's true that the Non-Relocation Agreement prevents the team from being sold to anyone who, to the Bills knowledge, intends to actually move the team while the stadium lease is in force. But the Non-Relocation Agreement does not prevent anyone from moving the team anywhere after the lease either (1) expires in 2023, or (2) is terminated by the Bills in 2020 (if whoever owns the team then follows the termination procedure spelled out in the stadium lease).

 

So the team is pretty well locked in to playing games at the Ralph for 6 more years, not 9.

 

Thanks -- good post. That said, I think the final sentences of Kryk's piece will be the operative determinants, whether it's 6 or 9 years.

[Punch]

 

 

Ok then why are they working on a new stadium? They can't move into it according to you. BTW a great attorney or entire law firm if need be can break the entire thing. That said I think its Trump and he is going to keep them here

 

The lease can be voided early in 2020 at which point the team can move to a new stadium in WNY or elsewhere. This is what has been speculated on and reported pretty regularly.

 

What do you mean "According to you"? It's what the agreement says, not speculation on my part.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I think there's alot new in this!

 

This article also explains how both the Bill's and NFL both signed off on this agreement that states we as fan's can seek injunctive relief. So If Bon Jovi tries to buy the Bill's and states, "No I'm not going to buy the team and ever move it" All you need is some fan to go to court and get an injunction that would forbid the NFL owners from even voting on approving the sale to him. Could a Bon Jovi win in court, sure but the amount of time required on a court battle would likely convince owners to not even consider that bid and look much harder for a local group or a group that is committed to Buffalo.

 

I think this may be the reason guys like Kelly, Thomas for years have been all happy and saying the Bill's aren't going anywhere.

 

For all the people who were continuously bashing RW for not selling the team to a local group while alive, this was his way of assuring the team does stay in western NY for a long time!

 

In other words, nothing new here. We already know that the team couldn't be moved during the length of the lease. Thanks for clarifying.

[Wayne Cubed]

Ok then why are they working on a new stadium? They can't move into it according to you. BTW a great attorney or entire law firm if need be can break the entire thing. That said I think its Trump and he is going to keep them here

A good lawyer would argue that. A great lawyer would not argue anything and let the team move to Los Angeles. The clause means nothing, contracts are meaningless in this country now-a-days.

sWhoever buys in the team is going to have money. Money is power and money walks. BS doesn't. Enough money would get the Bills moved

 

I don't get his idea that some lawyer and loads of money will move the team. Shahid Khan, the Jaguars owner, who is worth billions could certainly move the Jaguars to LA or wherever and sell out a stadium and make more money.

 

Yet the Jags are still in Jacksonville with no plans, only rumors of moving. Why is that? Could it be the stadium lease that would require them to pay millions to get out of? Maybe.

 

EDIT: And on top of having to jump through all the legal loop holes, the move would have to be approved by the league and still pay a "yet to be determined" relocation fee.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Wayne Cubed

[Tsaikotic]

GOOD!!!!

 

What has Toronto done over the past five years to even think they deserve to get an NFL team? With a smaller stadium, they couldn't sell out the games, the atmosphere was pathetic, and it just didn't work! . . . even if a new owner could move a team there, why would you want to?

 

thats what I was thinking as well...without the tailgating and atmosphere that the Bills stadium offers now, why would U.S. fans want to travel across a border to watch a game?...I can't see the fans from Rochester, Syracuse and farther east going to as many games in Toronto....I just don't see the team thriving in Canada even when the Canadians would rather see them in Buffalo for the better atmosphere

[All_Pro_Bills]

The lease can be voided early in 2020 at which point the team can move to a new stadium in WNY or elsewhere. This is what has been speculated on and reported pretty regularly.

 

What do you mean "According to you"? It's what the agreement says, not speculation on my part.

From a legal standpoint any agreement or contract can be amended or modified with the consent of all the parties involved. So if moving to a new facility either in Buffalo or the Falls presented itself earlier the current agreement could be changed to allow the move.

 

That aside, I think the legal hurdles this agreement presents would be enough to discourage any party intent on moving the team from bidding. So from us Bills fans I say, goodbye LA, goodbye Toronto.

[Cash]

I just read the article, and while it's cool that that clause is there, I found Kryk's analysis overly simplistic. It's like he never heard of Clay Bennett or the Seattle Supersonics. Any "move" buyer is going to come in talking about keeping the team in Buffalo, and do so till at least 2019. Kryk makes a decent point that said buyer needs to actually convince Erie county of his sincerity, but I still don't take it to mean much.

[Matt in KC]

Most people on TBD will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the Non-Relocation Agreement and stadium lease actually say. If anybody actually cares what the Non-Relocation Agreement actually says, here's my brother Darryl's analysis:

 

http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf

 

The relevant language is in Section 3(b) -- I deleted extraneous language for clarity (full text is in the link):

 

[blah blah blah - all the exact language here]

Thanks so much for taking the time to break it down. I haven't had time, and won't for awhile. I learned much more reading your breakdown than elsewhere.

[Tsaikotic]

Ok then why are they working on a new stadium? They can't move into it according to you. BTW a great attorney or entire law firm if need be can break the entire thing. That said I think its Trump and he is going to keep them here

 

I wonder if the county and state are planning to keep the team in Buffalo area by offering to completely pay for or at least pay 85% of the new stadium...

[Fingon]

Ok then why are they working on a new stadium? They can't move into it according to you. BTW a great attorney or entire law firm if need be can break the entire thing. That said I think its Trump and he is going to keep them here

Lawyers aren't magic and they can't just make an ironclad lease go away. This guy has watched way too much TV.

[GA BILLS FAN]

First, great article. I wasn't aware of that particular clause. My take, it's another (large) speed bump that further solidifies the difficulty to move this team over the course of the lease. That's great ! I still want to keep focus on the long term (9+ years) and need for team to be sold to a local buyer and the need for state/erie co.to work out a stadium solution that will keep team in WNY for next 40+ years. But, this is good news, another deterrent to relocation.

[K-9]

Lawyers aren't magic and they can't just make an ironclad lease go away. This guy has watched way too much TV.

 

Good point. Lawyers are nothing, if not practical. Lawyers I've spoken to privately as well as those that have commented publicly about it, all seem to agree that the language is very strong and as close to iron-clad as possible. Unusually strong language for an agreement of this type.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 29, 2014 by K-9

[tombstone56]

Wet blanket chimes in

 

 

@ByTimGraham: Toronto is within 90 miles of Buffalo and considered Buffalo's NFL territory. Moving the team there might not be considered relocation.

 

AS USUAL """ TIM GRAHRAM "" DOESNT KNOW CRAP!!!

[yall]

Speaking of lawyers, I love how all of the sudden everyone on TBD seems to have earned their juris doctorate over the winter, and are now fully versed in the interpretation and execution of legal contracts.

 

Also, if you believe Tim G and the minority of posters are being wet blankets (and to be fair a few are going out of their way to be as negative as possible, but I suppose that is not an uncommon mentality for Bills fans) then just ignore them. If you feel their opinions are without merit, don't give them any attention. When the team is sold to a local owner, they are just going to find something else to try and aggrivate you.

 

[thebandit27]

Most people on TBD will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the Non-Relocation Agreement and stadium lease actually say. If anybody actually cares what the Non-Relocation Agreement actually says, here's my brother Darryl's analysis:

 

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 (full text is in the link):

 

 

 

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. If the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the stadium lease and the "Non-Relocation Term" both end 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, as well as the John Kryk blog that the OP linked to. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, portions of the media reports and portions of John Kryk's blog piece are wrong.

 

It's true that the Non-Relocation Agreement prevents the team from being sold to anyone who, to the Bills knowledge, intends to actually move the team while the stadium lease is in force. But the Non-Relocation Agreement does not prevent anyone from moving the team anywhere after the lease either (1) expires in 2023, or (2) is terminated by the Bills in 2020 (if whoever owns the team then follows the termination procedure spelled out in the stadium lease).

 

So the team is pretty well locked in to playing games at the Ralph for 6 more years, not 9.

 

As I said in the other thread: seems like the legal battle (the one I don't believe will happen) would focus on the verbiage, vis-a-vis "expiration" vs "termination".

 

 

 

Good point. Lawyers are nothing, if not practical. Lawyers I've spoken to privately as well as those that have commented publicly about it, all seem to agree that the language is very strong and as close to iron-clad as possible. Unusually strong language for an agreement of this type.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I bet Alan Shore could do it...

[K-9]

As I said in the other thread: seems like the legal battle (the one I don't believe will happen) would focus on the verbiage, vis-a-vis "expiration" vs "termination".

 

 

 

I bet Alan Shore could do it...

 

I'd give it to Denny Crane, first.

 

Denny Crane!!

 

GO BILLS!!!

[YoloinOhio]

The more I read and hear about this, the more confused I get. BTW Mike Florio is a lawyer, here is his take:

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 54m

Latest newly-discovered clause in Bills lease doesn't change anything about the team's long-term status http://wp.me/p14QSB-9tak