WEDG Report: Rogers meets with Cuomo & Bills

[A Dog Named Kelso]

See the stuff above. They cannot just pay the $400m. They have to go to court, WIN the unwinable case, and THEN are able to pay the $400 million to get out of the lease.

 

I understand what the appropriate course of events should be. My point if someone wanted to pull an Irsay and move in the middle of the night ... nothing is really stopping them outside of what May Day 10 has brought up. If you do not care if you are paying out 400 million you may not care about the way you moved the team looks.

 

Actually I guess the relocation NFL vote would prevent that ... unless that too was in secret(IDK if there would be federal laws preventing that).

Edited June 6, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[Greg F]

Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.

 

If a court issues an injunction or an order of specific performance, and the order is ignored, the judge can cite them for contempt of court. The judge can then put them in jail until they comply with the court order.

[May Day 10]

And that doesn't count the relocation fee, which could be hundreds of millions and falls into that same category.

 

well, you also have to consider the team would probably be worth more in a "better" city.

 

With that said, I believe the NFL could possibly be a "risky" investment at this point. It seems the whole thing is getting saturated. Last season it seemed there was some issues in a lot of places attendance-wise and not the perpetually sold-out image the NFL likes to portray. Then you have the walls caving in on them with all the head trauma stuff, alumni stuff, frivolous fan lawsuits, etc. NCAA Football is also about to enter a real gut check when it comes to the players vs institutions battle. I also believe youth and high school participation is down and will likely go down more, especially when schools/organizations shut it down to avoid lawsuits.

We may be at or close to the height of NFL Football

[K-9]

I understand what the appropriate course of events should be. My point if someone wanted to pull an Irsay and move in the middle of the night ... nothing is really stopping them outside of what May Day 10 has brought up. If you do not care if you are paying out 400 million you may not care about the way you moved the team looks.

 

The terms of the lease itself is stopping them from pulling an Irsay. They are contractually obligated to play their games at RWS until such time they can pay a $28.4m buyout after year six.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[A Dog Named Kelso]

It's possible if a new owner attempts to move the team in violation of an injunction that prevents that. It's highly unlikely as a fine would be imposed, but jail time is possible is a new owner refuses to pay it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I would think if they are willing to pay 400 million they would pay additional fines too.

[K-9]

I would think if they are willing to pay 400 million they would pay additional fines too.

 

But again, as I and others have been trying to point out, it's gonna be FAR FAR FAR more than $400m. They pay that ONLY AFTER they WIN a case that could easily cost hundreds of millions more. Then we ADD the $250 million relocation fees to that. When it's all said and done, that could end up being more than what some franchises are currently valued at ON TOP OF WHAT WAS PAID FOR THE TEAM in the first place.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 6, 2014 by K-9

[RussellDopeland]

My question is whether Larry "Snortin" Norton or Nicholas Picholas can offer any further insight into this report? Or are their sources telling them something altogether different?

[A Dog Named Kelso]

The terms of the lease itself is stopping them from pulling an Irsay. They are contractually obligated to play their games at RWS until such time they can pay a $28.4m buyout after year six.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The whole point of the move would be to specifically to break the lease with them understanding what the consequences would be.

 

I am not at all saying I know if it is possible or not I am just asking questions. Because if someone doesn't care about 400 million dollars who knows what they might do about a contract signed by someone else. I believe its highly unlikely just really playing devil's advocate.

Edited June 6, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[May Day 10]

The Why Guy went on this morning on how the legal process would go down

[thebandit27]

I think the journalist mangled the story. All the specific performance clause's in the contract are simply acknowledging that an order of specific performance is something the county/state/ECSC could seek in relief upon default by the Bills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A court would have to issue an order of specific performance.

 

 

 

That was an example for a real estate transaction.

 

In this case an order of specific performance would force the Bills to abide by the terms of the Non-Relocation agreement. IOW, the Bills would have to play their home games at RWS.

 

After reviewing Section 6.4 of the lease, it seems that what Ganis is referring to is specific performance as defined in the actual lease agreement:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf

 

Also I think Section 5 of the Non-Relocation Agreement plays into the discussion:

 

http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf

 

(paraphrasing)...

 

Additionally, based on the foregoing, the Bills hereby agree as follows:

(ii) That obligations are being incurred to make the Stadium available for Games during the term of the 2013 Stadium Lease and that any Non-Relocation Default shall constitute irreparable harm to the County, the ECSC and the State for which monetary damages or other remedies at law will not be an adequate remedy.

I think that's the operative language on which Ganis bases his conclusions

[May Day 10]

But again, as I and others have been trying to point out, it's gonna be FAR FAR FAR more than $400m. They pay that ONLY AFTER they WIN a case that could easily cost hundreds of millions more. Then we ADD the $250 million relocation fees to that. When it's all said and done, that could end up being more than what some franchises are currently valued at ON TOP OF WHAT WAS PAID FOR THE TEAM in the first place.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Would legal fees really make the cost that much more than $400 Million? I would say much less than 1% of that

[K-9]

The Why Guy went on this morning on how the legal process would go down

 

And?

 

This oughta be rich.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[What a Tuel]

well, you also have to consider the team would probably be worth more in a "better" city.

 

 

True. But between the relocation fee, the lease fee, the court battle, etc etc, these fees would likely overshadow the increased value of moving to another city. Maybe you profit your way out of the red. Maybe you don't. Point is that Ralph made it difficult for someone to just pick up and move. How much more nervous would we all be if we didn't have this lease protection?

 

I don't like the way Shredd constantly laughed when their guest asked about the rumor and how they got a hold of it. I think its all a cruel joke.

[K-9]

Would legal fees really make the cost that much more than $400 Million? I would say much less than 1% of that

 

Litigation could take years and yes, I could see that costing in the nine figures easily. I certainly can't see less than the $4m you suggest.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The whole point of the move would be to specifically to break the lease with them understanding what the consequences would be.

 

I am not at all saying I know if it is possible or not I am just asking questions. Because if someone doesn't care about 400 million dollars who knows what they might do about a contract signed by someone else. I believe its highly unlikely just really playing devil's advocate.

 

That's interesting in the context of the Tim Graham report from few weeks ago that said a Toronto group has bowed out after learning about the lease conditions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Wayne Cubed]

So, as an update, have we had any conformation that this conversation, that the OP talked about, actually happened. And had anyone heard the clip where it's actually said?

[All_Pro_Bills]

I believe the $400 million is payable if you win a virtually unwinable court case.

The $400 million payment is an early termination fee for breaking the lease agreement prior to the year 7 $28 million 'buy out' window with the lease being transferable to any new owner for the said term of the lease agreement which is 10 years. If so, court action would be required if the team broke the agreement and refused to pay the termination fee while attempting to relocate the team. The county/state would file legal charges against the team in court to sue for the $400 million and request an injuction to block the team from playing any games until the litigation is resolved. If anyone thinks judges and the courts hear and rule on cases as defined solely by the law then you haven't spent much time in court dealing with litigation. A lot of procedural BS comes into play too.

 

The team could file a request for a change of venue citing the county/state courts would not provide an impartial environment and that might or might not be accepted. If it is not accepted then you pretty much have pissed off the county and states courts that will now hear your case. If they lose they could certainly file an appeal but legal filings, briefs, and injuctions filed in the courts by the county and state could tie up the litigation for years.

 

You think the NFL wants to see a scenario play out such as this one and also take on powerful poltical interests to support the sale of a team to a foreign concern that has more or less no political clout in Albany or Washington DC at the expense of a large and loyal fan base of American voters to move the team to Canada?

 

To win the case, the team would need to prove the terms of the lease are in violaton of some county/state/federal law. The specific legal strategy of the owner seeking to terminate the lease agreement and avoid paying the termination fee is unclear. Even if they decide to pay the $400 million the county and state can still file charges and injuctions against the re-location move and sue the league if necessary and to lobby Congress to revoke the leagues anti-trust exemption. This would be the nuclear option to the league and its worst nightmare.

 

My expectation is the team is sold for 'fair value' by the trust to a group interested in keeping the team in WNY with the condition a new facility will be constructed on or before year 7 of the current lease agreement. The league and owners will want to avoid any unnecessary political battles to move the team up north for what might be a few million each per year per team. And with a large and loyal ticket buying fan base along with plans for a new stadium many owners will find it impossible to vote for re-location. Enough to block the move.

Edited June 6, 2014 by All_Pro_Bills

[stony]

Not to mention even if the $400 million buyout existed, people act as if it is the same as paying 1 billion for the team. No it isn't. When you pay 1 billion for the team, you are making a 1 billion dollar investment that will make you money over the years and will likely sell for $1 billion + when you want to cash it in. When you pay a $400 million penalty, you are not making an investment, you are losing that money. It is gone forever. Completely different uses of money.

 

Sure a billionaire may be able to say, meh $400 million? Heres a check. But it is unlikely they would just throw money away like that. It doesn't even exist though so it is irrelevant.

 

Also the Shredd and Reagan audio just sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. Could Rogers Reps have been arguing about the canceled Toronto Series?

 

Or...they factor in the $400 million into the total purchase price (and whatever relocation fees) and assess its worth in a market like Toronto i.e. a lot more.

 

Now I don't think this will happen, and thankfully NFL franchises aren't appreciating like NBA ones are given the lack of an overseas market, but it's still something to digest when calculating what an out-of-town bidder might be thinking.

[Captain Caveman]

So, as an update, have we had any conformation that this conversation, that the OP talked about, actually happened. And had anyone heard the clip where it's actually said?

 

Here is a link to where they were discussing it.

 

http://stationcaster.com/stations/wedg/media/mp3/PFT_s_Mike_Florio_w__Shredd___Ragan___-1402069224.mp3

[thebandit27]

 

He's asking if the meeting between Schumer/Cuomo/Rogers happened...and no, there's no evidence that it did

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

A court would have to issue an order of specific performance.

 

* * * *

 

In this case an order of specific performance would force the Bills to abide by the terms of the Non-Relocation agreement. IOW, the Bills would have to play their home games at RWS.

Hey Greg F:

 

Most of your comments are spot on, but technically there's a difference between (1) an "order of specific performance" where a court orders the then-owner of the Bills to specifically play future games in Ralph Wilson stadium, and (2) a court order (called a "prohibitory injunction") that prevents the then-owner of the Bills from playing games anywhere but Ralph Wilson stadium. The end result is the same as a practical matter, but courts are generally more amenable to requests to issue an order that prohibits certain conduct, as opposed to an order that requires a party to affirmatively perform some future act.

 

Note that one portion of the [Non-Relocation Agreement?] you quoted above states:

 

Therefore, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there exists no adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce this Agreement against the Bills, and that equitable relief by way of a decree of specific performance or an injunction (such as a prohibitory injunction barring the Bills from relocating or playing the Games in a facility other than the Stadium or a mandatory injunction requiring the Bills to play the Games at the Stadium) is the only appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement notwithstanding the provisions for liquidated damages provided elsewhere in this Section 5.

 

Either type of order is possible, but the "prohibitory injunction" is a much more likely remedy than a specific performance order if the County brought suit to prevent relocation and won.

 

One other significant point that others (not you) sometimes miss:

 

The existing stadium lease contains many protections for the County to keep the Bills from moving before the roughly $28 million buyout in 2020. But no matter how strong those protections are, the County can't enforce any of them if the County materially breaches its own obligations imposed by the same document that provides those protections. You won't see that concept specifically mentioned anywhere in the stadium lease or in the relocation agreement, but it's a generally applicable principle of law that applies to both.

 

Question for Greg F. - -

 

I think the County asked for the separate Non-Relocation Agreement precisely because of the principle I outlined above, i.e., that if the County failed to meet some of its future monetary obligations required by the current lease, it could be found to be in material breach, and therefore be unable to obtain the remedies otherwise available to it in the lease to prevent relocation.

 

But as a separate agreement, the Non-Relocation Agreement requires mutual consideration to be enforceable. Do you see any separate consideration received by the BILLS in the Non-Relocation Agreement that would make it binding as a stand-alone agreement? I have a hard time identifying any separate consideration the Bills received for signing the Non-Relocation Agreement.

 

The possibility of the County materially breaching its financial obligations to the Bills is not entirely far-fetched. The docs available at the County website show that the County was behind in some unspecified amount in its financial obligations under the old lease when the current lease was signed.

 

P.S. Life is still hectic here, but the thread title sucked me in. Still would like a future discussion in the other thread, but I'm out for a while. Sorry to post and run, but its unavoidable.