A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 All the money in the world isn't going to buy your way out of a violation of a court injunction against moving, which would take all of 5 minutes to obtain. Moving vans wouldn't get past Abbott and Big Tree. GO BILLS!!! What moving vans? In the described scenario the Bills would pack up for their last away game and after said game announce they would not be returning. They would not need moving vans, they would have brought gear with them. Also, again moving vans assumes they want anything other than personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 What moving vans? In the described scenario the Bills would pack up for their last away game and after said game announce they would not be returning. They would not need moving vans, they would have brought gear with them. Also, again moving vans assumes they want anything other than personnel. Are you suggesting an NFL team can move without the use of moving vans? They leave everything there and just start anew somewhere else? Okay. Even if this far-fetched scenario came true, it STILL wouldn't protect an owner if he violated an injunction prohibiting a move, even if it's "just personnel". Not to mention that the NFL would be liable in that scenario as well. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Are you suggesting an NFL team can move without the use of moving vans? They leave everything there and just start anew somewhere else? Okay. Even if this far-fetched scenario came true, it STILL wouldn't protect an owner if he violated an injunction prohibiting a move, even if it's "just personnel". Not to mention that the NFL would be liable in that scenario as well. GO BILLS!!! Oh, I totally agree it is far fetched, I am just interested in the discussion. Any thought on my earlier question? Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no? Edited June 10, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Oh, I totally agree it is far fetched, I am just interested in the discussion. Any thought on my early question? Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no? I'm not sure what earlier question you're referring to. The injunction will be easier to enforce as will the contempt charges to follow. The Bills either play at RWS or they don't play anywhere. Period. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure what earlier question you're referring to. The injunction will be easier to enforce as will the contempt charges to follow. The Bills either play at RWS or they don't play anywhere. Period. GO BILLS!!! How does a NY court enforce this, hypothetically, if the Bills choose to play in LA Coliseum and had already moved their personnel. Usually when you are dealing with sophisticated parties, they don't violate court-ordered injunctions. The interesting thing--which is purely academic-- is what a US court could do if someone were bold enough to violate an injunction. Say, a US court issues an injunction, preventing the Bills from re-locating or forcing them to abide by the lease. The Bills up and move to Canada. It would be more difficult to enforce the injunction up there; you would basically have to get a Canadian court to enforce the US court's order. I am assuming it would not be a Federal court but a state court(that may not be a correct assumption). Edited June 10, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Usually when you are dealing with sophisticated parties, they don't violate court-ordered injunctions. The interesting thing--which is purely academic-- is what a US court could do if someone were bold enough to violate an injunction. Say, a US court issues an injunction, preventing the Bills from re-locating or forcing them to abide by the lease. The Bills up and move to Canada. It would be more difficult to enforce the injunction up there; you would basically have to get a Canadian court to enforce the US court's order. The NFL is headquartered in NY City. They would be complicit and liable. GO BILLS!!! How does a NY court enforce this, hypothetically, if the Bills choose to play in LA Coliseum and had already moved their personnel. I am assuming it would not be a Federal court but a state court(that may not be a correct assumption). The court enforces this just like they enforce anything else. You either comply with a court order or you face criminal charges for being in contempt. Anyway, this has gotten too far off the rails for further comment. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The NFL is headquartered in NY City. They would be complicit and liable. BINGO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The NFL is headquartered in NY City. They would be complicit and liable. GO BILLS!!! I had thought about that but was not sure if, each club is considered a separate business or not. (I.E. law suits by cheerleader against clubs and not the NFL proper) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 In your example, it would be pretty easy. Erie County would basically file something in California state or federal court, which would basically domesticate the NY court order. Then Erie County could enforce its injunction in the California courts. I would suspect that the process would be similar in Canada, but I don't know. Not sure this matter. The NFL might be liable, but the injunction would be against the Bills. I guess you could seek an injunction against the NFL, preventing them from permitting the Bills to host any NFL-regulated home games in non-RWS arenas? Well, since the terms of the lease are clear that the Bills MUST play their games at RWS and the NFL reviews and approves all leases, it's safe to assume the NFL would be served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Anyway, this has gotten too far off the rails for further comment. GO BILLS!!! Thanks for indulging me. I know it is all academic and really I was just testing the theory that if someone was unscrupulous how far could it really go. Edited June 10, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Plunge Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 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). That's why you only sell a portion before he died. Locks in the future owner without taking on too much additional tax pain. It could have only been 10-15% of the club. We wouldn't be having this conversation today if that would've happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) That's why you only sell a portion before he died. Locks in the future owner without taking on too much additional tax pain. It could have only been 10-15% of the club. We wouldn't be having this conversation today if that would've happened. Oh, so it would have only cost his estate 15 Million. I won't call you an idiot. I will say that it's presumptuous and rude to question what another man decides to do with his estate. It is absurd to do so WHEN YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT HAS DECIDED TO DO WITH HIS ESTATE. For all you know, the trust could have instructions to sell to buyers who will commit to keeping the team in Buffalo. Or they could have instructions to sell the team to the highest bidder in Tokyo. You're right that we wouldn't be having this conversation if RW had done things differently, but that was his decision to make, and IMO there's not much to be gained in arguing about it. Edited June 10, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The NFL is headquartered in NY City. They would be complicit and liable. GO BILLS!!! The court enforces this just like they enforce anything else. You either comply with a court order or you face criminal charges for being in contempt. Anyway, this has gotten too far off the rails for further comment. GO BILLS!!! The NFL is not party to the lease. The point is moot. The bills could only move with the consent of a super majority of the owners. So none of this other speculation matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The NFL is not party to the lease. The point is moot. The bills could only move with the consent of a super majority of the owners. So none of this other speculation matters. At this point the lease is immaterial and the NFL, by sanctioning the act of the team playing in another location in violation of a court order, would be complicit. The point is indeed moot. But a poster was indulging a fantasy scenario rather than speculating. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 At this point the lease is immaterial and the NFL, by sanctioning the act of the team playing in another location in violation of a court order, would be complicit. The point is indeed moot. But a poster was indulging a fantasy scenario rather than speculating. GO BILLS!!! The NFL wouldn't vote for the move, is what I am saying. They have no liablity here. Even if they did vote to approve the move--still no liability. They would be exercising their rights as a private corporation to conduct business as usual. They aren't party to the contract with the County--this would be the Bills owner's problem solely. Not sure how you're making this connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I really hope you are right. But I remain concerned. This would be no different than the sonics breaking their lease and moving to OKC. They had similar anti-relocation provisions in their lease. It didn't stop the sale; the case eventually settled after less than a year, and Seattle was just paid a certain amount. I'd be interested in seeing the exact language as I doubt that lease had the teeth that Erie County and NYS insisted upon. Since Mr. Wilson's death and the subsequent scrutiny of the lease, there have been several articles quoting lawyers with experience in these matters describing the unprecedented terms. For instance, did the Sonics' lease give the city of Seattle the express right to seek an injunction preventing a move? Did it specify $400m dollars as the penalty the team would pay the city if Seattle lost a court case? Did it specify that the Sonics were obligated to play their home games ONLY in Seattle? From all indications the scholarly lawyers that have read the lease and offered opinions in those articles, seem to be right. Especially if Graham's article about a Toronto group bowing out after reviewing the lease terms is true. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I really hope you are right. But I remain concerned. This would be no different than the sonics breaking their lease and moving to OKC. They had similar anti-relocation provisions in their lease. It didn't stop the sale; the case eventually settled after less than a year, and Seattle was just paid a certain amount. Did they begin to play in OKC before the case was settled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The NFL is not party to the lease. The point is moot. The bills could only move with the consent of a super majority of the owners. So none of this other speculation matters. I'm sure your teams owner, despite his truly nice words about Ralph, would have no problem voting for more $$$$$. It is his track record. Plus sometimes he gets liquored up and does whatever Jerry Jones tells him. Besides Kraft though, there are other owners that I suspect are more likely to vote against a move or an owner intent on making a move. NYG, Pit, GB, KC come to mind. And you left out the part about the Bills owners wanting to sell to someone moving the team. Clearly this has not been established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 1) The Seattle lease had the same specific performance clause as the Bills lease. 2) I don't think the lease had a liquidated damages provision, like the Bills' lease. 3) The lease had similar anti-relocation provisions/only play games in Seattle. I don't believe so. Did Seattle seek and get an injunction as was their right as specified in the lease? If not, that was stupid...or perhaps that right wasn't expressed in their lease agreement with the Sonics? I'm wondering why legal beagles quoted in past articles seem so unanimous in their description of the Bills' lease vs. others in pro sports. I'd need to see the Sonics/Seattle agreement. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) 1) The Seattle lease had the same specific performance clause as the Bills lease. 2) I don't think the lease had a liquidated damages provision, like the Bills' lease. 3) The lease had similar anti-relocation provisions/only play games in Seattle. I don't believe so. Here is a pretty good article on the Sonics situation, written before the drama had fully played out. It also contains some discussion of the Browns move to B-more. It appears that, although the Sonics' lease had a specific performance/non-relocation provision, the language was not as bullet-proof as the provision in the Erie County stadium lease. http://community.sea...=sonicslease27m Edited June 11, 2014 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts