mannc Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 There is a very long, scholarly article from the 2010 Marquette Sports Law Journal on non-relocation provisions in MLB. It also discusses such provisions in the other major sports, including the Supersonics lease dispute. You will have to scroll down to about page 58 to get to the meat of the article. Bottom line: At the time of the article, there had been only two court decisions regarding enforcement of non-relocation provisions in the major sports, both in MLB. In both cases (the NY Yankees in 1983 and the Minnesota Twins in 2002) the courts enforced the non-relocation provisions and prevented the teams from playing their home games in different locations. The Supersonics lease dispute was settled before the court issued a decision. I tried to paste the link, but it did not work. You'll have to google it if you want to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 There is a very long, scholarly article from the 2010 Marquette Sports Law Journal on non-relocation provisions in MLB. It also discusses such provisions in the other major sports, including the Supersonics lease dispute. You will have to scroll down to about page 58 to get to the meat of the article. Bottom line: At the time of the article, there had been only two court decisions regarding enforcement of non-relocation provisions in the major sports, both in MLB. In both cases (the NY Yankees in 1983 and the Minnesota Twins in 2002) the courts enforced the non-relocation provisions and prevented the teams from playing their home games in different locations. The Supersonics lease dispute was settled before the court issued a decision. I tried to paste the link, but it did not work. You'll have to google it if you want to read it. Why wouldn't the court enforce the non-relocation provisions, as both parties signed the agreement? That's what people don't get here. Enforcing the lease is the DEFAULT position of the court, which puts the burden on the party trying to get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Why wouldn't the court enforce the non-relocation provisions, as both parties signed the agreement? That's what people don't get here. Enforcing the lease is the DEFAULT position of the court, which puts the burden on the party trying to get out of it. Well, in both cases, the courts did enforce the non-relocation provisions. But courts generally don't like to enforce such provisions when it appears that simple monetary relief (i.e., payment of money) will suffice. The article contains a good discussion of why that is and the best way to draft non-relocation provisions that will be more likely to hold up in court. From what I can tell, the folks who negotiated the Bills' lease for Erie County lease did a pretty good job. Edited June 11, 2014 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) 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. What's it called when you sanction and are party to conducting business as usual in defiance of a court order? At this point in this far-fetched scenario, the lease isn't the only instrument. GO BILLS!!! Well, in both cases, the courts did enforce the non-relocation provisions. But court's generally don't like to enforce such provisions when it appears that simple monetary relief (i.e., payment of money) will suffice. The article contains a good discussion of why that is and the best way to draft non-relocation provisions that will be more likely to hold up in court. From what I can tell, the folks who negotiated the Bills' lease for Erie County lease did a pretty good job. That seems to be the general consensus by the legal scholars that chose to share their opinions in the various articles regarding the lease over the last few months. GO BILLS!!! Edited June 11, 2014 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The NFL did sign off on the Bills lease. This has been mentioned in several articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What's it called when you sanction and are party to conducting business as usual in defiance of a court order? At this point in this far-fetched scenario, the lease isn't the only instrument. GO BILLS!!! That seems to be the general consensus by the legal scholars that chose to share their opinions in the various articles regarding the lease over the last few months. GO BILLS!!! If a party choses to violate the terms of a contract, that is between the parties of the contract. There is simply no way the NFL could be found liable for anything here. It makes no sense to claim otherwise. Obviously there is nothing in the lease prohibiting the NFL from voting on the owner moving the team, because...it's a lease. There is no "court order", but if there was, it would only pertain to the actions of the owner. It cannot affect the business of the NFL, because the NFL has nothing to do with the agreement between the Bills and their landlord. Can you cite any legal reason describing how a court could drag the NFL into a contract dispute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 If a party choses to violate the terms of a contract, that is between the parties of the contract. There is simply no way the NFL could be found liable for anything here. It makes no sense to claim otherwise. Obviously there is nothing in the lease prohibiting the NFL from voting on the owner moving the team, because...it's a lease. There is no "court order", but if there was, it would only pertain to the actions of the owner. It cannot affect the business of the NFL, because the NFL has nothing to do with the agreement between the Bills and their landlord. Can you cite any legal reason describing how a court could drag the NFL into a contract dispute? The NFL had to sign off on the lease. They were directly involved in its crafting, and actually didn't like some of it, and made the Bills/Erie County change some of it. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/documents-offer-peek-into-secret-negotiations-over-bills-lease-20130914 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 BTW, the little title thing in that article is not what I was referring to as the NFL insisting on changes. I had read that elsewhere they didn't like how hard it was for the team to get out of it. Ralph didn't either. But they all worked together and decided on the final version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The NFL had to sign off on the lease. They were directly involved in its crafting, and actually didn't like some of it, and made the Bills/Erie County change some of it. http://www.buffalone...-lease-20130914 The NFL may have approved of the lease, but they still are not party to it. They may have "signed off" in a figurative sense, not literally. It does not bind them in any way that K-9 insists. I'm not saying that the NFL would ever vote for a Bills move. I'm saying if they did, no court would be able to alter that vote or prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The NFL may have approved of the lease, but they still are not party to it. They may have "signed off" in a figurative sense, not literally. It does not bind them in any way that K-9 insists. I'm not saying that the NFL would ever vote for a Bills move. I'm saying if they did, no court would be able to alter that vote or prevent it. I just don't know. They really were directly involved. They insisted on changes or wouldn't sign off (I will try to find the article). The team and county could not sign the deal without their approval. They are all about image. While there is very little chance, as you say, that they would be liable, there is a very decent chance that the county and state would name them in the court case, and it could drag on for quite some time before the courts decide that they couldn't be held responsible in any way. That is a real threat to them IMO. They don't want the league dragged through the mud even if there is no chance they would be found negligent of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The NFL may have approved of the lease, but they still are not party to it. They may have "signed off" in a figurative sense, not literally. It does not bind them in any way that K-9 insists. I'm not saying that the NFL would ever vote for a Bills move. I'm saying if they did, no court would be able to alter that vote or prevent it. Once again, in this far-fetched scenario, the lease is no longer the only relative legal instrument. In this far-fetched scenario, the team's new owner moved the team in defiance of a court order prohibiting that move as the county and state sought and were granted the injunctive relief spelled out in the lease. If the NFL, again in this far-fetched scenario, sanctioned and approved that new owner playing games in a different location, they would be complicit in that action prohibited by the court's injunction. Again, this is a far-fetched scenario and it would never get that far. But in the event that it did, the NFL would be party to a violation of a direct court order. The league would face very real exposure to legal action. And I doubt there would be a shortage of lawyers seeking to prove that. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The NFL may have approved of the lease, but they still are not party to it. They may have "signed off" in a figurative sense, not literally. It does not bind them in any way that K-9 insists. I'm not saying that the NFL would ever vote for a Bills move. I'm saying if they did, no court would be able to alter that vote or prevent it. Do you think it's reasonable to say that the NFL would not hold a vote on moving the team until after any legal challenges are resolved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Do you think it's reasonable to say that the NFL would not hold a vote on moving the team until after any legal challenges are resolved? There is really no reason for it to go to court until the teams tries to move. Erie county would bring the Bills to court if the Bills wanted to break the lease. So at least in my mind the order would be (assuming a owner wanted to move): 1) Trust agrees to sell 2) NFL approves sale 3) NFL approves relocation 4) Erie county brings the Bills to court and the fun really begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 This is what should happen--because county doesn't really have a claim until steps 1-3 happen and there is some indication of an intent to break the lease. But I think the county would jump the gun and sue immediately upon sale/provisional; acceptance of bid. Right. There are two basic possibilities, and it seems highly unlikely that the Toronto group would seriously consider one of them, which is to act as if they want to keep the team in Buffalo for 6-9 years, and then when they couldn't agree on a new lease in Buffalo, move them to Toronto. Who is going to believe that and why would they do that. The only other scenario is automatically breaking the lease, since the mere intention and discussion does that. So the county would jump in the fray before the NFL even discussed the possible approval. But that is also why I think the Toronto group is somewhat screwed. The NFL is not at all going to want that to happen and to have their name and ownership brought into a messy, lengthy court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 people in Buffalo wouldnt cuddle to that. No matter how warm and cozy Bon Joves/MLSE act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I just don't know. They really were directly involved. They insisted on changes or wouldn't sign off (I will try to find the article). The team and county could not sign the deal without their approval. They are all about image. While there is very little chance, as you say, that they would be liable, there is a very decent chance that the county and state would name them in the court case, and it could drag on for quite some time before the courts decide that they couldn't be held responsible in any way. That is a real threat to them IMO. They don't want the league dragged through the mud even if there is no chance they would be found negligent of anything. I agree. Once again, in this far-fetched scenario, the lease is no longer the only relative legal instrument. In this far-fetched scenario, the team's new owner moved the team in defiance of a court order prohibiting that move as the county and state sought and were granted the injunctive relief spelled out in the lease. If the NFL, again in this far-fetched scenario, sanctioned and approved that new owner playing games in a different location, they would be complicit in that action prohibited by the court's injunction. Again, this is a far-fetched scenario and it would never get that far. But in the event that it did, the NFL would be party to a violation of a direct court order. The league would face very real exposure to legal action. And I doubt there would be a shortage of lawyers seeking to prove that. GO BILLS!!! I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. The NFL would not be the ones violating the lease (or "court order", if you like). I agree they wouldn't agree to this lease arrangement and then turn around and vote for a move. But they cannot be penalized by any court if they did so. This is a contract between the landlord and the team--nothing more. It's contingencies and penalties only apply to those two parties. Do you think it's reasonable to say that the NFL would not hold a vote on moving the team until after any legal challenges are resolved? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 There is really no reason for it to go to court until the teams tries to move. Erie county would bring the Bills to court if the Bills wanted to break the lease. So at least in my mind the order would be (assuming a owner wanted to move): 1) Trust agrees to sell 2) NFL approves sale 3) NFL approves relocation 4) Erie county brings the Bills to court and the fun really begins. The lease is worded so that it should go to court as soon as ownership considers moving. The court battle would be before the ownership vote for relocation. Hopefully with the news on Pegula, it is a moot point. This is what should happen--because county doesn't really have a claim until steps 1-3 happen and there is some indication of an intent to break the lease. But I think the county would jump the gun and sue immediately upon sale/provisional; acceptance of bid. http://nfl.si.com/2014/04/29/buffalo-bills-sale-relocation-lease/ Clause 3(b) in the non-relocation agreement states, in part, that without approval of both the state-appointed public corporation that owns the Ralph and the county in which the stadium sits, the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …” The clause also prevents the team from so much as entertaining, soliciting or negotiating any offer or proposal to relocate the team. To do otherwise would be in breach of this novel non-relocation agreement between the Bills, the NFL, the state of New York and Erie County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) I agree. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. The NFL would not be the ones violating the lease (or "court order", if you like). I agree they wouldn't agree to this lease arrangement and then turn around and vote for a move. But they cannot be penalized by any court if they did so. This is a contract between the landlord and the team--nothing more. It's contingencies and penalties only apply to those two parties. Yes. You're too hung up on the parties involved in the lease. This scenario takes place on a parallel track after the lease has been broken and a new legal instrument introduced: a court order barring the Bills from playing any games outside of RWS. The NFL would be breaking the law by sanctioning any game played in direct violation of that court order. They would be complicit in the act. That is illegal and they could be named in a suit on those grounds alone. GO BILLS!!! Edited June 13, 2014 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 You're too hung up on the parties involved in the lease. This scenario takes place on a parallel track after the lease has been broken and a new legal instrument introduced: a court order barring the Bills from playing any games outside of RWS. The NFL would be breaking the law by sanctioning any game played in direct violation of that court order. They would be complicit in the act. That is illegal and they could be named in a suit on those grounds alone. GO BILLS!!! And that really is the crux of the matter. Would the court go this far. My lawyer friend says they do not in "normal" lease breaking cases and doubts the court would in this case either. But he also says this situation is anything but normal so he won't discount the possibility completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 And that really is the crux of the matter. Would the court go this far. My lawyer friend says they do not in "normal" lease breaking cases and doubts the court would in this case either. But he also says this situation is anything but normal so he won't discount the possibility completely. The legal scholars that have opined in the several articles since this came to light a few months ago, agree that they've never seen such language in a lease of this type. So yeah, it's anything but normal. The language gives the county and state the express right to seek the injunctive relief in order to enforce the lease terms, chief among these that the Bills MUST play their games at RWS and nowhere else. What are the chances any judge in Erie County and/or NYS wouldn't grant the order in light of the specified language contained in the agreement? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts