Peter Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I see some of you are discussing the "intention" language. The way I look at it, this is our way to tell Jon Bon Jerk Off to kiss our collective Buffalonian arses. It is clear what his and his partners' intentions are. They can now go f**k off. Edited April 29, 2014 by Peter
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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? Hey GPC, For some earlier discussion of the stadium lease provisions with my brother Darryl's thoughts, see reply #67 posted 4/13/14 here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/166973-buyout-clause-in-lease-only-to-move-to-new-stadium-not-for-relocation/page__st__60 Darryl says that just like the Non-Relocation Agreement, the full text of the current Stadium Lease is available at an Erie County website (technically this is an unsigned draft of the Stadium Lease, but Darryl can think of no reason why the County would publish an inaccurate version of the document that was eventually signed): http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf Because a lot of people won't bother to click on the link, here's the actual text of Article 7.1 (the part of the Stadium Lease that gives the Bills the option to terminate the lease after 7 years): ARTICLE 7 LEASE TERMINATION 7.1 Right to Terminate The Bills shall have the right to terminate this 2013 Stadium Lease effective at 11:59 p.m., Buffalo, New York time as of the Termination Date, provided that the Bills have first (a) delivered to the County and the ECSC, no later than 12:00 noon Buffalo, New York time on the Termination Notice Date, written notice of the Bills' intention to terminate this 2013 Stadium Lease pursuant to this Section 7.1 as of the Termination Date, and (b) paid to the ECSC, before the Termination Date, the Termination Fee. If the Bills have satisfied the aforementioned conditions precedent to its right to terminate this 2013 Stadium Lease, then this 2013 Stadium Lease, other than the rights or obligations which, by their terms, survive the expiration, termination or cancellation of this 2013 Stadium Lease, shall terminate as of the Termination Date and the Bills' obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants shall not apply to any actions taken by the Bills after the later of the Bills' completion of said conditions precedent and the completion of all Games for the NFL Season which ended immediately prior to, or which is then ongoing as of, the Termination Notice Date. The Bills obligation to pay the Termination Fee shall survive the expiration, termination or cancellation of this 2013 Stadium Lease; provided, however, that no Termination Fee shall be payable in the event of a termination as set forth in Section 7.2 of this 2013 Stadium Lease. The "Termination Notice Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as February 28, 2020. The "Termination Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as July 30, 2020. The "Termination Fee" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as $28,363,500. The only conditions Darryl found in the Stadium Lease to the Bills' option to terminate in year 7 are (1) giving written notice of intent to terminate to the County and to the ECSC by noon on 2/28/20, and (2) paying the roughly $28M termination fee to the ECSC before 7/30/20. Darryl said he has not read every word of the roughly 82 page Stadium Lease, but he has read, among others, all of the section 7 termination provisions and he has reviewed the Table of Contents at the front of the Stadium Lease. There aren't any other conditions on the Bills' exercise of their option to terminate the Stadium Lease in the places you would normally expect to find them if they existed, although you would need to read every word of the Stadium Lease to be entirely certain that no other conditions existed. There does not seem to be anything in the Stadium Lease that restricts use of the year 7 termination option to a situation where the Bills are moving to a new WNY stadium. As far as Darryl can tell, there are no restrictions whatsoever on where the Bills can play games after year 7 if the Bills elect to exercise their contractual right to terminate the lease after 7 years by giving timely written notice and timely paying the roughly $28M fee.
Rocky Landing Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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. I assume that the executor of the estate is going to sell the team to the highest bidder, who meets the terms of the lease agreement.
Peter Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I assume that the executor of the estate is going to sell the team to the highest bidder, who meets the terms of the lease agreement. Much to my (pleasant)surprise, I heard that Littman (and Russ) were the ones that talked the NFL into allowing the Bills to sign the lease with these particular clauses that are favorable to the Bills staying in Buffalo. There were owners who did not want to approve these. I have to believe that it was Ralph's desire that the team stay in Buffalo given these clauses. Certainly, the executor of the estate would be familiar with the intent. It is now up to Bills fans, the County, and the State to do what we can to make sure the team stays in Buffalo. I presume that there are enough people that want to keep the team in Buffalo who also have the money to buy the team.
Mr. WEO Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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? Two separate entities were, at least for some time, willing to build stadiums in LA absolutely on spec--there was NO team that had indicated to them they would move into their stadium(s), yet they were willing to build. Anyway, you said "inner circle" individuals would testify against the new owner. I don't see why them copping to anything. Why would they rat out the boss? Again, any clever business man would discuss such things only with his legal team.
SF Bills Fan Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I would image that there were a few owners (Jones one of them) that saw Buffalo as an easy solution to the LA problem. Not so fast. I would bet that Mark Davis is happy. This will likely guarantee that he has LA open for him to return to.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Anyway, you said "inner circle" individuals would testify against the new owner. I don't see why them copping to anything. Why would they rat out the boss? Again, any clever business man would discuss such things only with his legal team. Ummmm... because it's not illegal to lie to protect your boss in meetings or at a bar or on the phone, but it is highly illegal and you could go to jail for it if you were to lie about it in court under oath? And on the stadium issue that is a totally different point. Plus they never went through and they were not nearly as close to coming to fruition as you may think. The AIG one almost had no chance.
Mr. WEO Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Ummmm... because it's not illegal to lie to protect your boss in meetings or at a bar or on the phone, but it is highly illegal and you could go to jail for it if you were to lie about it in court under oath? And on the stadium issue that is a totally different point. Plus they never went through and they were not nearly as close to coming to fruition as you may think. The AIG one almost had no chance. Unless it's recorded somewhere exactly what was said by whom, there is no way to prove a man who says nothing was said is lying. Or he certainly could say he does not recall any such discussions. This is easy--"slam dunk". As for the stadium projects in LA, the fact that they were not build is immaterial to your argument that a new owner MUST have been in contact with his new host city to arrange for a stadium to land in. The LA projects have proven this false.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Unless it's recorded somewhere exactly what was said by whom, there is no way to prove a man who says nothing was said is lying. Or he certainly could say he does not recall any such discussions. This is easy--"slam dunk". As for the stadium projects in LA, the fact that they were not build is immaterial to your argument that a new owner MUST have been in contact with his new host city to arrange for a stadium to land in. The LA projects have proven this false. No they don't because neither of them were close to being made. And the reason the second wasnt close was because there wasnt any team that would have remotely thought about coming to LA in that deal. It wasn't even within reason. There was no way to make money, which would be the reason to move to LA from another city. All it takes is one person to fear that perjury or lying under oath is a bad thing to truncate the entire sinister plan. That is my original point. It's easy to imagine that someone would want to do it. It's easy to imagine theoretically that an owner could say all the right things so that his real intentions were not known. What's hard, if not impossible to imagine, IMO, is the whole evil plan can be thwarted by one person hearing one conversation that actually has a conscience or is scared of lying in court. The NOT knowing it will be able to be done, and knowing you will be taken to court and that you are automatically guilty if the truth comes out is what will stop anyone from doing it.
GaryPinC Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Hey GPC, For some earlier discussion of the stadium lease provisions with my brother Darryl's thoughts, see reply #67 posted 4/13/14 here: http://forums.twobil...on/page__st__60 Darryl says that just like the Non-Relocation Agreement, the full text of the current Stadium Lease is available at an Erie County website (technically this is an unsigned draft of the Stadium Lease, but Darryl can think of no reason why the County would publish an inaccurate version of the document that was eventually signed): http://www2.erie.gov...greement123.pdf Because a lot of people won't bother to click on the link, here's the actual text of Article 7.1 (the part of the Stadium Lease that gives the Bills the option to terminate the lease after 7 years): The "Termination Notice Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as February 28, 2020. The "Termination Date" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as July 30, 2020. The "Termination Fee" is defined elsewhere in the Stadium Lease as $28,363,500. The only conditions Darryl found in the Stadium Lease to the Bills' option to terminate in year 7 are (1) giving written notice of intent to terminate to the County and to the ECSC by noon on 2/28/20, and (2) paying the roughly $28M termination fee to the ECSC before 7/30/20. Darryl said he has not read every word of the roughly 82 page Stadium Lease, but he has read, among others, all of the section 7 termination provisions and he has reviewed the Table of Contents at the front of the Stadium Lease. There aren't any other conditions on the Bills' exercise of their option to terminate the Stadium Lease in the places you would normally expect to find them if they existed, although you would need to read every word of the Stadium Lease to be entirely certain that no other conditions existed. There does not seem to be anything in the Stadium Lease that restricts use of the year 7 termination option to a situation where the Bills are moving to a new WNY stadium. As far as Darryl can tell, there are no restrictions whatsoever on where the Bills can play games after year 7 if the Bills elect to exercise their contractual right to terminate the lease after 7 years by giving timely written notice and timely paying the roughly $28M fee. Great, thanks! I saw Article 7.1 but hadn't been able to pinpoint those definitions. 'preciate it. It still seems to me from what I did read is that while the Bills could talk to Owners about moving the team after the lease expires, if word got out or if the public knew the potential owners would take the team away that could do economic harm while the talks were ongoing and could be basis for county/state to go to court. I'd be curious to know your opinion on that?
Rocky Landing Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Much to my (pleasant)surprise, I heard that Littman (and Russ) were the ones that talked the NFL into allowing the Bills to sign the lease with these particular clauses that are favorable to the Bills staying in Buffalo. There were owners who did not want to approve these. I have to believe that it was Ralph's desire that the team stay in Buffalo given these clauses. Certainly, the executor of the estate would be familiar with the intent. It is now up to Bills fans, the County, and the State to do what we can to make sure the team stays in Buffalo. I presume that there are enough people that want to keep the team in Buffalo who also have the money to buy the team. I have no doubt that it was Ralph Wilson's desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I did not know that there was league resistance to the lease agreement. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel any better. My hope is that what RW was able to work into the lease will be enough to keep the team in Buffalo. As I have stated previously, my fear is that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder, the highest bidder will want the highest ROI, and the highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.
Dragonborn10 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 What if the committee says $400 million now is worth more than the franchise over the next decade. The county and committee could agree that relocation is in the best interest of the community now if they feel relocation is inevitable. If the parties know there is no hope of a new stadium being built they might decide to pocket the relocation money sooner rather than letting the Bills walk away a decade from now for nothing.
Big Turk Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I have no doubt that it was Ralph Wilson's desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I did not know that there was league resistance to the lease agreement. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel any better. My hope is that what RW was able to work into the lease will be enough to keep the team in Buffalo. As I have stated previously, my fear is that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder, the highest bidder will want the highest ROI, and the highest ROI will not be in Buffalo. The resistance lies not in keeping the Bills in Buffalo but to pretty much forcing the hand of the next owner
dave mcbride Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 No they don't because neither of them were close to being made. And the reason the second wasnt close was because there wasnt any team that would have remotely thought about coming to LA in that deal. It wasn't even within reason. There was no way to make money, which would be the reason to move to LA from another city. All it takes is one person to fear that perjury or lying under oath is a bad thing to truncate the entire sinister plan. That is my original point. It's easy to imagine that someone would want to do it. It's easy to imagine theoretically that an owner could say all the right things so that his real intentions were not known. What's hard, if not impossible to imagine, IMO, is the whole evil plan can be thwarted by one person hearing one conversation that actually has a conscience or is scared of lying in court. The NOT knowing it will be able to be done, and knowing you will be taken to court and that you are automatically guilty if the truth comes out is what will stop anyone from doing it. I agree with this.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/future-of-the-bills-updates-answers-to-key-questions-and-perhaps-one-more-tall-obstacle-for-a-toronto-ownership-group/ Kryk tries to break down what the agreement means in greater detail. What a concept.
Rocky Landing Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 The resistance lies not in keeping the Bills in Buffalo but to pretty much forcing the hand of the next owner I think there has been some misperception on how "forced" the new owner's hand will be. I think "incentive" will be a better approach.
Recommended Posts