K-9 Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Of course they're under obligation to sell to highest bidder, that's why its in a trust. They'll get sued for breach of fiduciary duty otherwise. Any bidder will be subject to NFL approval as a closing condition. Please folks wake up. Not quite. They are under obligation to sell to the highest bidder who garners a 3/4 vote of the voting trustees. That's not the same as selling to the highest bidder. GO BILLS!!!
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) If the new purchaser pays the 400 m, no court is going to issue an injunction. You don't get an injunction when you have money damages. Including the liquidated damages/ buy out provision in the lease kills the county's chance at an injunction. It's going to be easy to void the lease, assuming the owner pays the 400 m and otherwise gets NFL approval. That is simply false. You and many of the other posters can save yourselves a lot of time and aggravation by simply reading ICanSleepWhenI'mDead's posts on this issue. His (or his brothers') analysis is 100% correct. Edited June 8, 2014 by mannc
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 That is simply false. You and many of the other posters can save yourselves a lot of time and aggravation by simply reading ICanSleepWhenI'mDead's posts on this issue. His (or his brothers') analysis is 100% correct.
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 What way will they find? I have specifically defined the legal ways that it will be prevented. If you are saying in 2020 that it is possible -absolutely. If you are saying before that -absolutely not. On the other point please see Captain Caveman's post above. I am going to bow out on this one. I must not be doing a good job articulating the facts because some believe that they are irrelevant. There is no "finding a way" before 2020. There are legitimate long term concerns but the team will be in WNY for the next few years no matter what. Kirby, this is probably right, but as ICSWID outlines in his post, one potential glitch is the new owner arguing that the county breached its obligations under the lease, thereby giving new owner a free pass to move the team. That legal fight would take years and years to resolve, though, I suspect.
4merper4mer Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Of course they're under obligation to sell to highest bidder, that's why its in a trust. They'll get sued for breach of fiduciary duty otherwise. Any bidder will be subject to NFL approval as a closing condition. Please folks wake up. As someone who has a lot of money, let me help you out a bit on the intent of a trust. The intent is to fulfill the wishes of the originator of the trust. Ralph's trust could say sell it the highest bidder, sell it to the lowest bidder or sell it to anyone who wears plaid purple pants to the supermarket on 12th and Main at midnight on the 23rd, stands on the asparagus bin and sings show tunes. For someone to say that this trust obligates the trustees to sell to the highest bidder, with no other conditions, indicates that person has either read and fully comprehended the individual trust or that person is ignorant to the workings of trusts in general. If there ever was a time to break out Occum's Shaver, it is now. Edited June 8, 2014 by 4merper4mer
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Kirby, this is probably right, but as ICSWID outlines in his post, one potential glitch is the new owner arguing that the county breached its obligations under the lease, thereby giving new owner a free pass to move the team. That legal fight would take years and years to resolve, though, I suspect. They will take the team out of town FIRST, if they want to, then fight it out in court. And if they pay the 400m specified as the breakup fee, I just don't see the court getting too hopped up about it. Sorry guys, a lease is just not as binding as you seem to feel it is. Some legal hurdles for guys that have billions of dollars and have very sophisticated lawyers, to guide them thru, legal hurdles. Against some lawyers who work for state wages, and are not even that into it, as many residents will want to have the 400m to put into the community more than they will want the Bills. Not everyone cares. They will then donate a further 50m to pay for plastic surgery for Buffalo public school teachers (or hopefully to actually improve schools) and voila, resistance is broken. See how easy that was?
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 if you really think it is impossible for the team to just move and deal with the legal after the fact, you are quite naive. It has happened, it can happen again. Heck they can move the team and simply pay the lease amount per annum worst comes to worst. It is a pipe dream that that lease can really bind the Bills to Buffalo. You are wrong. The reason you are wrong has been explained in great detail by posters on this board with legal training who have actually read the lease. Please stop, or at least provide some informed legal basis for your pronouncements.
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 You are wrong. The reason you are wrong has been explained in great detail by posters on this board with legal training who have actually read the lease. Please stop, or at least provide some informed legal basis for your pronouncements. Assuming we get an owner that prefers to move, let us check back in 2018 on this issue. If Golisano gets the team, may be a moot point. If Bon Jovi gets it, they will be gone before the lease is up, cry all you want about the sanctity of the lease.
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 They will take the team out of town FIRST, if they want to, then fight it out in court. And if they pay the 400m specified as the breakup fee, I just don't see the court getting too hopped up about it. Sorry guys, a lease is just not as binding as you seem to feel it is. Some legal hurdles for guys that have billions of dollars and have very sophisticated lawyers, to guide them thru, legal hurdles. Against some lawyers who work for state wages, and are not even that into it, as many residents will want to have the 400m to put into the community more than they will want the Bills. Not everyone cares. They will then donate a further 50m to pay for plastic surgery for Buffalo public school teachers (or hopefully to actually improve schools) and voila, resistance is broken. See how easy that was? i will say it again. You are wrong. You are obviously not a lawyer and you are just spewing uninformed nonsense about the legal enforceability of the lease, or rather, the relocation agreement. That's not so bad, except that other posters who are highly informed and who have actual legal training have gone through a fair amount of trouble to set the record straight.
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 i will say it again. You are wrong. You are obviously not a lawyer and you are just spewing uninformed nonsense about the legal enforceability of the lease, or rather, the relocation agreement. That's not so bad, except that other posters who are highly informed and who have actual legal training have gone through a fair amount of trouble to set the record straight. I will take the legal team of a billionaire who is willing to pay liquidated damages over the legal knowledge and training of anyone on this board in a heartbeat. You in fact, are wrong, and silly, to think that money will not win out and get what it wants. legalese of the lease notwithstanding. I hope as do you, the Bills stay, But if they want to leave, I guess there is not a lawyer on this board who does not agree with me, enough money and they are out the door, one way or another. Correct, legal-trained minds?
Captain Caveman Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Of course they're under obligation to sell to highest bidder, that's why its in a trust. They'll get sued for breach of fiduciary duty otherwise. Any bidder will be subject to NFL approval as a closing condition. Please folks wake up. As someone who has a lot of money, let me help you out a bit on the intent of a trust. The intent is to fulfill the wishes of the originator of the trust. Ralph's trust could say sell it the highest bidder, sell it to the lowest bidder or sell it to anyone who wears plaid purple pants to the supermarket on 12th and Main at midnight on the 23rd, stands on the asparagus bin and sings show tunes. For someone to say that this trust obligates the trustees to sell to the highest bidder, with no other conditions, indicates that person has either read and fully comprehended the individual trust or that person is ignorant to the workings of trusts in general. If there ever was a time to break out Occum's Shaver, it is now. Holy ****, Crayonz nailed it. They will take the team out of town FIRST, if they want to, then fight it out in court. And if they pay the 400m specified as the breakup fee, I just don't see the court getting too hopped up about it. They can't take the team out of town without NFL approval. They can't get NFL approval without first winning the court battle. Edited June 8, 2014 by Captain Caveman
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 I will take the legal team of a billionaire who is willing to pay liquidated damages over the legal knowledge and training of anyone on this board in a heartbeat. You in fact, are wrong, and silly, to think that money will not win out and get what it wants. legalese of the lease notwithstanding. I hope as do you, the Bills stay, But if they want to leave, I guess there is not a lawyer on this board who does not agree with me, enough money and they are out the door, one way or another. Correct, legal-trained minds? No, your premise that anyone with enough money can get around the terms of the lease is false. ICSWID has explained in great detail (in this and other threads) why this premise is false and I really can't add much to his analysis. If you don't choose to read it or understand it, I can't help you.
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 No, your premise that anyone with enough money can get around the terms of the lease is false. ICSWID has explained in great detail (in this and other threads) why this premise is false and I really can't add much to his analysis. If you don't choose to read it or understand it, I can't help you. ok, not much I can say to you either. Capitalist country, most owners like Jerry Jones that want teams in big markets, damages that are pre-specified, if you cannot do the math, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. You are right, money would mean nothing at all against this bad-ass behemoth of a lease. I still postulate that in their heart of hearts every lawyer who reads this thread knows full well the Bills are under threat to leave within a year or two, depending on who the new owner is and how badly he wants to get out of town. EVERYTHING is about money, it is how much it will cost, and not if it can be done at all. But I am happy that at least one of feels secure that the Bills are in Buffalo thru 2020. Have restful sleep.
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 ok, not much I can say to you either. Capitalist country, most owners like Jerry Jones that want teams in big markets, damages that are pre-specified, if you cannot do the math, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I am not drinking the kool-aid. I am reading the lease and relying on actual legal analysis of it. What are you doing?
Beerball Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 They'll get sued for breach of fiduciary duty otherwise. Who would file suit in this case?
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Who would file suit in this case? One or more of the other beneficiaries of the trust.
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) ok, not much I can say to you either. Capitalist country, most owners like Jerry Jones that want teams in big markets, damages that are pre-specified, if you cannot do the math, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. You are right, money would mean nothing at all against this bad-ass behemoth of a lease. I still postulate that in their heart of hearts every lawyer who reads this thread knows full well the Bills are under threat to leave within a year or two, depending on who the new owner is and how badly he wants to get out of town. EVERYTHING is about money, it is how much it will cost, and not if it can be done at all. But I am happy that at least one of feels secure that the Bills are in Buffalo thru 2020. Have restful sleep. So your entire argument, in the face of facts, logic, reason, and the law, comes down to "money talks"? Can you not see why that is neither reasonable nor compelling? Edited June 8, 2014 by thebandit27
mannc Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 I still postulate that in their heart of hearts every lawyer who reads this thread knows full well the Bills are under threat to leave within a year or two, depending on who the new owner is and how badly he wants to get out of town. That's persuasive. Thanks for your informed contribution.
zazie Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 I am not drinking the kool-aid. I am reading the lease and relying on actual legal analysis of it. What are you doing? using common sense and looking at many precedents of a) broken leases and b ) NFL owners leaving town and dealing with the repercussions on the other side. Mostly just common sense, though. Money will out.
Ronin Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) You idiot ( wow I suddenly feel free to insult you like DC Tom would ). Ralph did everything he could to keep them here and my understanding is that selling before he passed would have had very negative tax implications for his heirs. A to the rest of this threads contents, I have my doubts the story is true or that Mrs. Wilson would sell to Rogers if this plan was known. (but I guess anything is still possible). Oh please! Boo-f'ing-hoo for the uber wealthy guy. Ralph bought this team for $25K. Think about that for a second. If the team sells for $1B, then $25K is less than 1/100th of a percent. In essence it's entirely profit. If taxes took 90% he'd still have $100,000,000 leftover for his family to pay their bills, rent, and buy food with. I realize that's a tight budget these days for the hoity toity's of the world, but with a little financial management I'm sure they could have managed. Ralph lied to us plain and simple. Ralph was and has always been concerned about Ralph and the rest of his Wilsons. Good for him, but let's not pretend that he was our best friend. This was obvious years ago. Edited June 8, 2014 by TaskersGhost
Recommended Posts