Report: agreement forbids sale to an owner who would relocate

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

This is the poison pill RW took for Buffalo. Moving the team while could be done will be vey difficult and costly. Could there be a lawsuit and would WNY lose, sure it's possible, but the NFL isn't going to want a lengthly court battle, so doubt they'd ever approve any owner who they think may try and move. As the article said if someone felt the team was being sold to a group that will eventually move the team, they file an injuction preventing the other NFL owners from even voting. So why would the owners go down that rabbit hole when there are plenty of other holes to follow. Roger Godell would have to be very nervious about selecting any owner who in discussions were to even ask questions about breaking the lease. Three years from now the new owner trys to move the team RG is hauled into court and questioned about his knowledge that at the time the new potential owner asked questions that should have led him to believe his motive was to move the team. He could then be held liable.

 

As was stated, the lease could be over turned and team moved in two years, hell they'd be lucky to have a court date in two years. This agreement IMO means unlikely the team will be moved before 2022, maybe 2020. And thta's too much time for a new owner to buy just to sit here. Likely to oif the state agrees to build a new stadium, similar clauses would be in the new lease too.

 

Wow..that is probably the coup de grace for anyone looking to buy and move the team. The Bills are "forbidden" from selling the team to someone who wants to relocate them...who controls the sale? The executor of the estate, Littman who is a loyal Bills employee and his Boss Brandon. It appears there is virtually zero chance the Bills move now...fantastic article and unbelievable a Toronto reporter has broken the two biggest stories regarding the lease...wtf are the Buffalo News reporters doing??

 

 

 

They won't get a chance to break the lease because anyone planning to buy the team and move them doesn't have a chance of even getting a meeting to begin negotiations...this is like a Mike Tyson punch to the face for anyone wanting to buy and move the team who reads the lease, lol

There is no legal basis for suing a party or parties refusing to sell a team to a group unless they claim protection under a "protected class". It's their team they can choose to sell or not sell to whoever they wish. As the lease is constructed, those parties wishing to relocate the Bills are excluded from consideration. The NFL will not try to set a dangerous precedent of breaking leases and the legal battle that would ensue. If they had wanted to, they would have rejected the lease before it could be signed. By not rejecting the terms, they silently accepted them without saying a word.

 

And good luck with suing the team in Erie County Court. You'd have a better chance of getting a conviction on a white defendant against a black man in 1850 Mississippi than a judge who might not make it alive out of the courtroom by ruling against the Bills

It seems I know more about law than you do. All that language in the lease being pure bull ****? The Buffalo Bills signed the lease and agreed to the terms, so they have to abide by them. You are the only person saying that it would be easy for the new owner to break the lease, while every professional interviewed says otherwise.

 

Try signing a lease for an apartment and then decide you don't want to pay for it. Yes, there is a chance you could win your case, but 99/100 you will lose.

[buffalopdc]

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.

 

 

This is not true at all. Especially in the commercial world contracts are pretty strictly enforced. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, however, they must be legitimate.

Edited April 29, 2014 by buffalopdc

[CodeMonkey]

The Bills cannot enter into a lease without NFL approval

I did not know this, thanks!

[GA BILLS FAN]

 

You are implying that the NFL had a say when the Bills entered into the current lease. Are you sure of this? If they did that speaks volumes as to the desire of not just Mr. Wilson, but the entire NFL to keep the Bills in Buffalo. But to the best of my knowledge, that agreement was just between the Bills and the county.

Poloncarcz was on GR this am with Simon/White and was asked this specific question -- he basically said, "while the NFL struggled with the language and terms in the agreement, we would not have signed it without their approval" (not sure the word he used, whether it was approval or support or buy in). He went on "Brandon / Littman convinced NFL it was in best interest of Bills and Buffalo. The NFL is not, however, a party to the contract. The Bills, Eric Co and NY State are the three parties".

[Big Turk]

 

I did not know this, thanks!

 

Seriously, the NFL controls how high or low a player's socks can be in a game and you think they are just gonna allow teams to sign legally binding documents without their approval? Lol

 

Poloncarcz was on GR this am with Simon/White and was asked this specific question -- he basically said, "while the NFL struggled with the language and terms in the agreement, we would not have signed it without their approval" (not sure the word he used, whether it was approval or support or buy in). He went on "Brandon / Littman convinced NFL it was in best interest of Bills and Buffalo. The NFL is not, however, a party to the contract. The Bills, Eric Co and NY State are the three parties".

 

Brandon and Littman might be as much responsible for saving the team as Ralph in the end by convincing the NFL to sign off on it...

 

 

[CodeMonkey]

Seriously, the NFL controls how high or low a player's socks can be in a game and you think they are just gonna allow teams to sign legally binding documents without their approval? Lol

 

 

 

Brandon and Littman might be as much responsible for saving the team as Ralph in the end by convincing the NFL to sign off on it...

The way I read it the NFL did not have to sign off. But the Bills decided they wouldn't do it without the NFLs approval.

[May Day 10]

I just dont think the NFL wants to give the appearance that they are forcefully approving a new owner and fighting in courts for them to leave. Buffalo is a well liked/respected fan base and an historic team that is woven into the heritage of the league. I could see the NFL desiring to quickly move and have B-Joves/MLSE buy and move them quickly and pass it off as not really a relocation... but Mr Wilson passed at a "good time" in relation to the lease. No way the NFL wants to stretch a public battle in an effort to relocate the Bills.

 

Especially after accepting public money for stadium improvements. That would be in bad form.

Edited April 29, 2014 by May Day 10

[TheLynchTrain]

I know Poloncarz tweeted out the erie county link to the Non Relocation Agreement last month, but does anybody think Kryk might have been perusing the board this weekend when we were discussing this?

 

The timing here makes you wonder...

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/167222-non-relocation-agreement/page__st__20

[GaryPinC]

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):

 

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

 

Did you find the section in the general lease agreement about the Bills terminating the lease in year 7? Specifically are there any conditions to this or solely at their discretion? I couldn't find the section skimming through and this is much more your area than mine. Thanks for your help!

 

Some other facets of the non-relocate agreement that seem significant to me:

 

Section 3 b) Bills can't even talk to potential relocation buyer unless relocation will take place after termination of lease or the Bills are already in arbitration over terminating the lease. But county/state can order injuction if they have evidence these discussions cause economic harm before the end of the lease.

 

Section 4: Transfer of franchise: Bills will put a lein on the franchise that new owners must abide by all lease and non-relocation terms.

 

Section 5: Liquidated damages: Both Bills and county/state acknowledge that actual damages are difficult to assess and forcing Bills to play in the Ralph or not being allowed to play elsewhere are the most effective measure. State/county must also try to seek damage relief in court before using $400 mil fund

 

Section 8: Miscellaneous:

"(ii) Each Party hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly

or indirectly out of this Agreement shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, Erie County, or the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

Each Party expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction and waives any claim

that Erie County, New York or the Western District of New York is an inconvenient forum or an

improper forum based on improper venue."

 

So no change of venue for disputes either. Things have been stacked to favor the team staying here.

[Big Turk]

 

 

Did you find the section in the general lease agreement about the Bills terminating the lease in year 7? Specifically are there any conditions to this or solely at their discretion? I couldn't find the section skimming through and this is much more your area than mine. Thanks for your help!

 

Some other facets of the non-relocate agreement that seem significant to me:

 

Section 3 b) Bills can't even talk to potential relocation buyer unless relocation will take place after termination of lease or the Bills are already in arbitration over terminating the lease. But county/state can order injuction if they have evidence these discussions cause economic harm before the end of the lease.

 

Section 4: Transfer of franchise: Bills will put a lein on the franchise that new owners must abide by all lease and non-relocation terms.

 

Section 5: Liquidated damages: Both Bills and county/state acknowledge that actual damages are difficult to assess and forcing Bills to play in the Ralph or not being allowed to play elsewhere are the most effective measure. State/county must also try to seek damage relief in court before using $400 mil fund

 

Section 8: Miscellaneous:

"(ii) Each Party hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly

or indirectly out of this Agreement shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of

New York, Erie County, or the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

Each Party expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction and waives any claim

that Erie County, New York or the Western District of New York is an inconvenient forum or an

improper forum based on improper venue."

 

So no change of venue for disputes either. Things have been stacked to favor the team staying here.

 

Good luck finding a judge that wants to commit political suicide

[GA BILLS FAN]

 

The way I read it the NFL did not have to sign off. But the Bills decided they wouldn't do it without the NFLs approval.

That's the correct interpretation of the conversation. Poloncarcz did say that the County / State pushed for the language to be included against the Bills wishes, not sure if he was "tooting his own horn", but it would imply that the county and state would be the ones to thank, not Ralph, Littman or Brandon, although those three all got on board and sold it to the NFL. I'm a bit skeptical of those comments since they seem a bit too self-serving for Poloncarcz

[CodeMonkey]

That's the correct interpretation of the conversation. Poloncarcz did say that the County / State pushed for the language to be included against the Bills wishes, not sure if he was "tooting his own horn", but it would imply that the county and state would be the ones to thank, not Ralph, Littman or Brandon, although those three all got on board and sold it to the NFL. I'm a bit skeptical of those comments since they seem a bit too self-serving for Poloncarcz

A politician, self-serving .... naaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[Homey D. Clown]

nothing can stop an owner from moving the team past 2022. that whole article is mis-leading. It only ensures that the team cannot be moved during the life of the lease. Nothing really new here... An owner can say he won't relocate the team ever, and then turn around on 1/1/2023 and pack the bags... sorry but that's all that the terms of the lease can do.

[MarkAF43]

nothing can stop an owner from moving the team past 2022. that whole article is mis-leading. It only ensures that the team cannot be moved during the life of the lease. Nothing really new here... An owner can say he won't relocate the team ever, and then turn around on 1/1/2023 and pack the bags... sorry but that's all that the terms of the lease can do.

 

Things similiar to this have been said a few times by a few different people, but as someone else mentioned earlier, the entire landscape of the NFL could be completely different from now looking 9 years into the future. To me being a simple idiot, it appears the odds are stacked in favor of this franchise staying here for a very long time.

[Rocky Landing]

nothing can stop an owner from moving the team past 2022. that whole article is mis-leading. It only ensures that the team cannot be moved during the life of the lease. Nothing really new here... An owner can say he won't relocate the team ever, and then turn around on 1/1/2023 and pack the bags... sorry but that's all that the terms of the lease can do.

I think that there has been some misinterpretation on the part of some posters that the Non Relocation Agreement states that the Bills can't sell to someone that they know is planning on moving the Bills. That simply isn't the case. They can't sell to someone who is planning to move the Bills during the Non Relocation Term. Some people think this is a deal-breaker, anyway. Who would want to buy a team that they can't move for seven years at the earliest? I think this is misguided reasoning. It could take two years just to secure ownership. In Los Angeles (where I live, and have been following the stadium situation fairly closely), the contract for building a new stadium hinges on there being a team to move there. Once there is a team, the stadium will be built. The most likely place for a LA stadium would be at a location called Farmer's Field. That contract is already pending with an extension likely to be signed this October. Should it be built, it will be a logistical nightmare and will take years. Seven years from now might just time out perfectly.

 

Currently, most people consider the Rams the front-runners for a move to Los Angeles, with the Raiders in second. Jax, and SD are essentially out of the running. But, if people in Buffalo don't think that moving to LA isn't a distinct possibility, I would say they are wrong. There's a lot of money in LA, and I have no doubt that the owners of some of that money are looking at Buffalo right now.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[Big Turk]

I think that there has been some misinterpretation on the part of some posters that the Non Relocation Agreement states that the Bills can't sell to someone that they know is planning on moving the Bills. That simply isn't the case. They can't sell to someone who is planning to move the Bills during the Non Relocation Term. Some people think this is a deal-breaker, anyway. Who would want to buy a team that they can't move for seven years at the earliest? I think this is misguided reasoning. It could take two years just to secure ownership. In Los Angeles (where I live, and have been following the stadium situation fairly closely), the contract for building a new stadium hinges on there being a team to move there. Once there is a team, the stadium will be built. The most likely place for a LA stadium would be at a location called Farmer's Field. That contract is already pending with an extension likely to be signed this October. Should it be built, it will be a logistical nightmare and will take years. Seven years from now might just time out perfectly.

 

Currently, most people consider the Rams the front-runners for a move to Los Angeles, with the Raiders in second. Jax, and SD are essentially out of the running. But, if people in Buffalo don't think that moving to LA isn't a distinct possibility, I would say they are wrong. There's a lot of money in LA, and I have no doubt that the owners of some of that money are looking at Buffalo right now.

 

You honestly believe that Littman, the executor of the estate, is going to sell to someone who he thinks is going to move the team? Doubt it. Doubly doubt that Erie County would sign off on it even if they tried.

 

You don't go through all this effort and energy to then say "Oh, well he said he won't move the team till after the lease is up, its cool". Also I'm pretty sure they would thoroughly search through any potential owners and find out their true intentions before selling.

Edited April 29, 2014 by matter2003

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

So what stops a buyer from having "intentions" to keep the team in buffalo, then changing their mind later in life??

 

Not spreading doom and gloom. People just need to enjoy buf has a team and support them as you see fit. The rest of the story will be what it shall be.... Unless a dedicated fan out there has a billion and half to throw around and street cred from a sports ownership.

Edited April 29, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood

[Kelly the Dog]

So what stops a buyer from having "intentions" to keep the team in buffalo, then changing their mind later in life??

That's the issue. To me, if legitimate, it would be easy to prove in court and a slam dunk. If it weren't legitimate, and more of a sham, it would be way too big of a risk for said owner to prove in court, because there would have to be numerous members of your inner circle who would be privy to your short, mid and long term plans, who would have to testify.

[Mr. WEO]

Seriously, the NFL controls how high or low a player's socks can be in a game and you think they are just gonna allow teams to sign legally binding documents without their approval? Lol

 

 

 

Brandon and Littman might be as much responsible for saving the team as Ralph in the end by convincing the NFL to sign off on it...

 

Doubt it took much convincing. Jax lease is locked in under penalty for 16 more years.

 

That's the correct interpretation of the conversation. Poloncarcz did say that the County / State pushed for the language to be included against the Bills wishes, not sure if he was "tooting his own horn", but it would imply that the county and state would be the ones to thank, not Ralph, Littman or Brandon, although those three all got on board and sold it to the NFL. I'm a bit skeptical of those comments since they seem a bit too self-serving for Poloncarcz

 

I'm sure the Bills FO is thanking the County--for the paltry rent they agreed to .

 

 

That's the issue. To me, if legitimate, it would be easy to prove in court and a slam dunk. If it weren't legitimate, and more of a sham, it would be way too big of a risk for said owner to prove in court, because there would have to be numerous members of your inner circle who would be privy to your short, mid and long term plans, who would have to testify.

 

How would you prove this easily? Why would any member of the inner-most circle of the owner testify against the owner? It's not like he's going to be blabbing to his drinking/golf buddies with hundreds of millions at stake. He'll only tell his lawyers (work product).

[Kelly the Dog]

 

How would you prove this easily? Why would any member of the inner-most circle of the owner testify against the owner? It's not like he's going to be blabbing to his drinking/golf buddies with hundreds of millions at stake. He'll only tell his lawyers (work product).

He would be able to prove it easily that he wasn't intending to move because there would be 7 billion people in the world who never heard him seriously mention that he was planning on it beforehand and zero evidence that he did. You don't think he would have to have serious, numerous conversations with the city he is planning on moving to?