May Day 10 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 High bidder, if not awarded the franchise, will probably sue to get the franchise unless Ralph's will specifically says that high bid is only one of many criteria to be considered equally in picking the winner. My understanding is that Ralph was pretty clear that high $$ bidder wins. Hope I am wrong. His hook to keep the team in Buff was the lease and the termination provisions. My point is: new owner just makes the lease payments on the Ralph and still moves the team. Hard to imagine a lease "forcing " the lessee to also occupy and use the leased premises for the term of the lease will hold up in court. As long as the lessee doesn't turn it into a giant flea market, my sense is as long as he is current on the lease payments, the lessee is not obligated to actually use the property...would need to know the annual lease payment to assess the viability of this scenario. Was looking at the Reliant stadium lease... only $4m per year + other payments that are hard to figure out specific performance clause. Playing their games at RWS is, in fact the lease payment. Not playing there violates the lease/non-relo agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) This isn't a municipal bid subject to NYS General Municipal Law...unless the terms of the Trust state specifically that they need to accept the highest bid, they (as a private entity) can sell to whoever they choose. Actually I was a trustee recently and was told by the trusts attorney that I had the fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the principals of the trust. Which meant in my case, and I would assume here as well, getting the most money for every asset. From what the attorney told me the states are extremely strict about that. If this was not the case there would be no need for the "iron clad" lease. The trustees could sell to whoever they wanted to. Edited June 3, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Actually I was a trustee recently and was told by the trusts attorney that I had the fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the principals of the trust. Which meant in my case, and I would assume here as well, getting the most money for every asset. From what the attorney told me the states are extremely strict about that. If this was not the case there would be no need for the "iron clad" lease. The trustees could sell to whoever they wanted to. Could be...could also be that "best interest" is defined differently with an entity like a football team that is viewed as a vital part of the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Could be...could also be that "best interest" is defined differently with an entity like a football team that is viewed as a vital part of the community. Unlikely as it is in the best interests of the principals of the trust. The principals of the trust are likely to be family. What's best for Buffalo or the county would not seem to enter into it. And a football team would be an asset like any other. But of course I am not a attorney, haven't played one on TV, and didn't even stay in a holiday Inn last night. I was just a trustee and executor within the past couple years. Edited June 3, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Unlikely as it it in the best interests of the principals of the trust. The principals of the trust are likely to be family. What's best for Buffalo or the county would not seem to enter into it. And a football team would be an asset like any other. But of course I am not a attorney, haven't played one on TV, and didn't even stay in a holiday Inn last night. I was just a trustee and executor within the past couple years. Could also be language that says a local bid has to be in a reasonable ball park of the high bid. For example if an L.A. bid is $1B and a local bid is $500M, that won't cut it. But if the local bid is $950M then being local gives it the edge. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Could also be language that says a local bid has to be in a reasonable ball park of the high bid. For example if an L.A. bid is $1B and a local bid is $500M, that won't cut it. But if the local bid is $950M then being local gives it the edge. PTR Perhaps. But I go back to the fact that if the trustees had that kind of control in who they sold the team to, there would be no need to make the lease as painful as they did to move the team. They would just sell it to someone who they trusted would keep the team in Buffalo and not handcuff the new owner(s) to that lease . Edited June 3, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 High bidder, if not awarded the franchise, will probably sue to get the franchise unless Ralph's will specifically says that high bid is only one of many criteria to be considered equally in picking the winner. My understanding is that Ralph was pretty clear that high $$ bidder wins. Hope I am wrong. His hook to keep the team in Buff was the lease and the termination provisions. My point is: new owner just makes the lease payments on the Ralph and still moves the team. Hard to imagine a lease "forcing " the lessee to also occupy and use the leased premises for the term of the lease will hold up in court. As long as the lessee doesn't turn it into a giant flea market, my sense is as long as he is current on the lease payments, the lessee is not obligated to actually use the property...would need to know the annual lease payment to assess the viability of this scenario. Was looking at the Reliant stadium lease... only $4m per year + other payments that are hard to figure out Of course the NFL can refuse to accept any bid. So such a lawsuit could be fruitless based on the fact that the highest bid is worth $0 if the NFL likes another bid better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Of course the NFL can refuse to accept any bid. So such a lawsuit could be fruitless based on the fact that the highest bid is worth $0 if the NFL likes another bid better. I doubt Mr. Wilson would have put that kind of faith in the other 31 greedy bastard owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Perhaps. But I go back to the fact that if the trustees had that kind of control in who they sold the team to, there would be no need to make the lease as painful as they did to move the team. They would just sell it to someone who they trusted would keep the team in Buffalo and not handcuff the new owner(s) to that lease . I'm speculating here, but there could be a number of reasons including, but not limited to assuring the County that the team would be here in the short-term after Ralph passes, so as to give them "skin in the game" to work with the team on a new stadium...or it could simply be a matter of showing a measure of short-term stability to a prospective new owner while still providing a sense of urgency for a new stadium. Again, I'm speculating, but there could be a myriad of reasons that go beyond the face of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 36m Bills have suitors who would buy the team and move it http://wp.me/p14QSB-9uDv "It may not go for $2 billion in Buffalo, but it could go for $2 billion or more if the buyer is intent on dog-paddling through six seasons in Buffalo before moving to the Los Angeles media market." they will be impaled on the goal posts and lit on fire, death to relocating owners :death: :death: :death: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I'm speculating here, but there could be a number of reasons including, but not limited to assuring the County that the team would be here in the short-term after Ralph passes, so as to give them "skin in the game" to work with the team on a new stadium...or it could simply be a matter of showing a measure of short-term stability to a prospective new owner while still providing a sense of urgency for a new stadium. Again, I'm speculating, but there could be a myriad of reasons that go beyond the face of the situation. Aren't we all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Aren't we all Shoot it's the offseason, the Bills are all street racing, what else have we got to do besides speculate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Aren't we all If there's one thing that this thread has taught me, it's that the only folks not speculating are those that know the team is moving. Shoot it's the offseason, the Bills are all street racing, what else have we got to do besides speculate? Talk about scotch in the Shoutbox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Talk about scotch in the Shoutbox? Count me in. Edited June 3, 2014 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Unlikely as it is in the best interests of the principals of the trust. The principals of the trust are likely to be family. What's best for Buffalo or the county would not seem to enter into it. And a football team would be an asset like any other. But of course I am not a attorney, haven't played one on TV, and didn't even stay in a holiday Inn last night. I was just a trustee and executor within the past couple years. But isn't there an additional element at play here? That being the league and the requirement for any sale to be approved by the owners? Similar to a condo association's membership needing to approve of the sale of a members unit to another person. In the case of the team the 'prinicpals' might include the 31 other franchise owners because although they receive no direct compensation they have a vested financial interest in the transaction. But like you I am not a lawyer so I am not clear on the specifics of estate sales governed by NY and federal law. The other thing is consideration for re-location. I assume this would be a separate vote. So one vote by league owners to approve/disapprove of the sale of the team and a 2nd vote by owners to approve/disapprove of a re-location plan. Unless I am missing something a buyer intent on keeping the team in Buffalo would need to secure approval once while a party seeking to move the team would need approval twice. Unless the terms of the sale are defined otherwise since it would make sense to anyone wanting to move the team to secure re-location approval before paying for the team and finding out the owners won't let you move it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 But isn't there an additional element at play here? That being the league and the requirement for any sale to be approved by the owners? Yeah that would clearly come into play, but separately I think. I suspect the high bidder would be proposed to the other owners and brought up for a vote and if they got the thumbs down, the trust would propose the next highest maybe? That makes sense to me anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSNBDSC Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Could also be language that says a local bid has to be in a reasonable ball park of the high bid. For example if an L.A. bid is $1B and a local bid is $500M, that won't cut it. But if the local bid is $950M then being local gives it the edge. PTR Smart robot Edited June 3, 2014 by tsnbd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) they will be impaled on the goal posts and lit on fire, death to relocating owners :death: :death: :death: Sure. The NFL is going to approve an owner who would piss on a city for 6 years, then move. Not to mention make an enemy of Chuck Schumer. Edited June 3, 2014 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Sure. The NFL is going to approve an owner who would piss on a city for 6 years, then move. Not to mention make an enemy of Chuck Schumer. the only way they pull it off is the wolf in sheep's clothing who cant close the ultimate deal in WNY, thus putting it back on the politicians/taxpayers. overtly signing the team off to Bon Jovi/Rogers/MLSE to screw Buffalo will be a real bad look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisker A Tasker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 This is exactly right. Make it look like you tried everything you could to keep them in Buffalo. At least that will keep people coming to the games for the next 6 years. the only way they pull it off is the wolf in sheep's clothing who cant close the ultimate deal in WNY, thus putting it back on the politicians/taxpayers. overtly signing the team off to Bon Jovi/Rogers/MLSE to screw Buffalo will be a real bad look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts