Peter Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I am very busy at work today, but what John Wawrow reported is directly relevant to the intent of JBJ and the Toronto group and is certainly enough for the State and County to file an action. Courts repeatedly have held that circumstantial evidence is adequate. The Supreme Court in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2003), held: The adequacy of circumstantial evidence also extends beyond civil cases; we have never questioned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction, even though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. See Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954) (observing that, in criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is “intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence”). And juries are routinely instructed that “[t]he law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.” 1A K. O'Malley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal § 12.04 (5th ed.2000); see also 4 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin, S. Reiss, & N. Batterman, Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 74.01 (2002) (model instruction 74–2). It is not surprising, therefore, that neither petitioner nor its amici curiae can point to any other circumstance in which we have restricted a litigant to the presentation of direct evidence absent some affirmative directive in a statute. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13 This is one of the Federal court jury instructions on circumstantial evidence: There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial—direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts or claims to have actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should weigh all the evidence in the case. Do any of you naysayers honestly believe that there are not communications and other evidence showing that JBJ's new found devotion is just a ruse?
Kirby Jackson Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Well, we could look at from the several parties point of view. The Trust What is their function? Well, it's obviously to get the best deal in the bidding process, but what constitutes the best deal? What are the parameters they are working under outside of the legally documented ones? Do the voting members of the trust have a firm belief in keeping the team in Buffalo? I've seen no statement to such from any voting member of the trust and rightfully so, as I believe that could hinder achieving the best return for the product. After all, why limit the ability to garner income, the sale of the team after all is being done to establish long term cash flow viability in the Wilson family while avoiding various tax implications. Ralph Wilson was loyal to this area, but he was also loyal to his family. These are merely my beliefs. The Wilson Family As I eluded to, I've seen no comments from this party concerning their stance on staying in Buffalo or not. And once again, rightfully so. I honestly no 0 about Mary and kids take on the situation, they've been very good about not disturbing the process. Maybe she feels the love the region showed her husband is more than worth overlooking a higher bid from a group who's MO is to move the team, even if stating otherwise. I just don't know. But the long term cash flow for the Wilson family, most likely through future generations, i.e. the kids and grand kids and great-grand kids may also play a major influence. Hard to say really without knowing Mary personally. The Toronto Group We pretty much agree on this groups intentions. The locally vested bidders We pretty much agree on this groups intentions. To me, it all comes down to Mary. I realize there are more voters than her, but I have to believe she has heavy sway over what her late husband has accomplished. I would imagine this is immense respect for her withing the inner circle of the trust, just something that I feel strongly about. This may be where the disconnect is. There have not been public statements made (for fear of losing negotiating power) but the trust has no intentions of an out of town buyer. They have local options that will be in the ball park. It will take a long term commitment to WNY (not a handshake) to win the bid. The two Mary's were added to the voting to see RW's wishes through. What Bandit and I have been saying is that this IS the case. If you choose to wait until the details funnel out publicly that's not an issue. That is the way that it will ultimately play out. The change of heart isn't because they would now rather be in Buffalo; it is because they want a shot to own an NFL team. If I had to guess I would guess Pegula but that isn't really going out on a limb. He is high on everyone's list for obvious reasons. I have yet to encounter anyone that wouldn't be thrilled with Pegula (except maybe JBJ ). Edited July 25, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
jo39416 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I am very busy at work today, but what John Wawrow reported is directly relevant to the intent of JBJ and the Toronto group and is certainly enough for the State and County to file an action. Courts repeatedly have held that circumstantial evidence is adequate. The Supreme Court in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2003), held: This is one of the Federal court jury instructions on circumstantial evidence: Do any of you naysayers honestly believe that there are not communications and other evidence showing that JBJ's new found devotion is just a ruse? Interesting... the question that I have is who would be the defendant in the suit? Would it be the trust for selling to a party that is prohibited under the lease, or would it be the Toronto group? My understanding is that it would be the trust, from there suit would be filed against Toronto group for looking at moving, no?
HopefulFuture Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This may be where the disconnect is. There have not been public statements made (for fear of losing negotiating power) but the trust has no intentions of an out of town buyer. They have local options that will be in the ball park. It will take a long term commitment to WNY (not a handshake) to win the bid. The two Mary's were added to the voting to see RW's wishes through. What Bandit and I have been saying is that this IS the case. If you choose to wait until the details funnel out publicly that's not an issue. That is the way that it will ultimately play out. The change of heart isn't because they would now rather be in Buffalo; it is because they want a shot to own an NFL team. If I had to guess I would guess Pegula but that isn't really going out on a limb. He is high on everyone's list for obvious reasons. I have yet to encounter anyone that wouldn't be thrilled with Pegula (except maybe JBJ ). Well, I am hoping, and I suspect, bandit and yourself may very well be correct. The reason I even jumped in to this conversation is because there is plausibility of the Toronto Group getting the team, even if remote. After all, they are in the bidding process. My original intent was to warn or voice caution to the board over all of this groups intent. That is where I started, I think bandit, you and myself got a little side tracked there. And yes, I have no choice but to wait until something rolls down decision wise for myself. In the mean time, it is a bit fun having bon jovi as a punching bag, hated the guy years ago for convincing my gf at the time that she should bug the **** out of me to grow long hair LOL.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Well, I am hoping, and I suspect, bandit and yourself may very well be correct. The reason I even jumped in to this conversation is because there is plausibility of the Toronto Group getting the team, even if remote. After all, they are in the bidding process. My original intent was to warn or voice caution to the board over all of this groups intent. That is where I started, I think bandit, you and myself got a little side tracked there. And yes, I have no choice but to wait until something rolls down decision wise for myself. In the mean time, it is a bit fun having bon jovi as a punching bag, hated the guy years ago for convincing my gf at the time that she should bug the **** out of me to grow long hair LOL. FWIW, the Toronto group are real players. This isn't some big publicity stunt. I don't think that they can win the bid but they will be around.
ALF Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 All the JBJ group has to do is sign a contract with Erie County that the Bills will stay in WNY till 2055 or else pay a $1 billion penalty if moved. Put up or shutup time.
Mayhem Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I think this might be the quote John Wawrow was talking about, particularly the last sentence: But on Friday, Sports Business Journal reported that Leiweke talked up Toronto at the Sports Entertainment & Venues Tomorrow conference in Columbia, S.C. “The NFL game on Thursday night [saints-Falcons] outdrew the NHL in Canada. Nothing outdraws the NHL in Canada, except Rob Ford on the nightly news,” Leiweke said in a keynote address. “They love the NFL up there. It’s unbelievable. Toronto is a vibrant, deep market. People talk about the great marketplaces in the world for live entertainment and sports. No. 1 gross in hockey? Toronto. Top-10 gross still today in the NBA? Toronto. Top-five gross in Major League Soccer? Toronto. Music – there’s the O2 in London, Madison Square Garden, maybe Staples Center and then Air Canada Centre, which had 60 shows last year, all sold out. There’s so much money up there. But we’ve got to find a stadium, got to find owners and got to find a team.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/when-it-comes-to-the-nfl-tim-leiweke-has-history/article15599690/
Tyrod's Tailor Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I think this might be the quote John Wawrow was talking about, particularly the last sentence: But on Friday, Sports Business Journal reported that Leiweke talked up Toronto at the Sports Entertainment & Venues Tomorrow conference in Columbia, S.C. “The NFL game on Thursday night [saints-Falcons] outdrew the NHL in Canada. Nothing outdraws the NHL in Canada, except Rob Ford on the nightly news,” Leiweke said in a keynote address. “They love the NFL up there. It’s unbelievable. Toronto is a vibrant, deep market. People talk about the great marketplaces in the world for live entertainment and sports. No. 1 gross in hockey? Toronto. Top-10 gross still today in the NBA? Toronto. Top-five gross in Major League Soccer? Toronto. Music – there’s the O2 in London, Madison Square Garden, maybe Staples Center and then Air Canada Centre, which had 60 shows last year, all sold out. There’s so much money up there. But we’ve got to find a stadium, got to find owners and got to find a team.” http://www.theglobea...rticle15599690/ I would imagine that's the one. Awesome news if that is in fact what JW is referring to.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 There is zero chance that Ralph would let his wife and daughter be vilified by the press and Bills fans for the rest of their lives for allowing the team to move, after all of his actions in his lifetime. It would be the worst possible thing to do to them outside of leaving them out of the will. There is just no chance of it. It makes zero sense.
T master Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I am in Toronto now & visited the city last year & anything i get from the people here when i say i'm a Bills fan is that they Hate the Bills . Dirty looks , frowns , every negative type responce that you could get . So i say to any thing to do with Toronto is #@%! THEM . They are just like LA alls they care about is getting more teams than they need , they won't support them like a Buffalo Bills fan have & will going forward . Leave the NFL in the US where it belongs , let Toronto & London & who ever else out side the US that wants a NFL team to go piss up a rope !! This is our football the rest of the world has there football . But if guys like Jerry jones & their intense motivation for greed has anything to do with the future of the NFL eventually they will ruin it for the true NFL & it's fans !!
SF Bills Fan Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 An AP Source is on WGR right now talking about how this could really hamper any chance they have of getting the team. Agreed- the cat is out of the bag.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) So here are some questions ... who pays the penalty if the lease is broken before the sale? The trust, the Wilson family, or the new Owner. If, entering into negotiations to sell the team to a group known to want to move the team breaks the lease, then would not the current owners(i.e the Trust or the Wilson Family) be the ones sued a thus owe the 400 Million dollars? Seems to me that might sway anyone in the trust from voting for more money. Also, I would suspect that Morgan Stanley should not allow any bid to go forward if they know it would break a legal agreement that the team is currently operating under, no? Edited July 25, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso
dbringer Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Wow - F5 really worked on this topic. It's a hot one. Someone mentioned earlier that Donald Trump even has a lower profile than JBJ. Up until now, I thought he wasn't too serious about this, but now I'm starting to think otherwise.
CodeMonkey Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Agreed- the cat is out of the bag. The cat is out of the bag that a group that wants to own a NFL team that has most of its members in Toronto commissioned a study before the Bills went on the market investigating stadium locations in the Toronto area? That cat? All the JBJ group has to do is sign a contract with Erie County that the Bills will stay in WNY till 2055 or else pay a $1 billion penalty if moved. Put up or shutup time. Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they? Edited July 25, 2014 by CodeMonkey
thebandit27 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 So here are some questions ... who pays the penalty if the lease is broken before the sale? The trust, the Wilson family, or the new Owner. If, entering into negotiations to sell the team to a group known to want to move the team breaks the lease, then would not the current owners(i.e the Trust or the Wilson Family) be the ones sued a thus owe the 400 Million dollars? Seems to me that might sway anyone in the trust from voting for more money. Also, I would suspect that Morgan Stanley should no allow any bid to go forward if they know it would break a legal agreement that the team is currently operating under, no? The Non-Relo indicates that the "Team" pays the penalty, so I assume that would be the current ownership at the time of the violation. As for Morgan Stanely, I believe they probably have limited liability with regard to the Team's actions...most likely they're in this to preside over the sales/purchase transaction.
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This is what I had posted some time ago: All of that becomes null after the lease is up. As long as any owner chosen by the trust does not attempt to move the team or scout a new location, they aren't in violation of the lease. Past actionjs by a group have no bearing in that lease as the lease only pertains to the owner of the team. If BJB is chosen as the owner, this story means nothing unless he again persues a stadium out of the Buffalo area. Talking about relocating the team before the lease is up. I'm not sure how it is worded, but it seemed to me that the wording was set up that you cannot even discuss the concept of leaving before the lease is up. It's possible that the wording states you can talking about moving at any time, you just cannot discuss moving before the lease is up. That is a big difference. Does anyone know the real concept? Poloncranz made it sound like you couldn't even talk about it, or discuss it in any way. It may be that you can talk about it all you want, you just can't consider moving it until after the lease is up. It probably has provisions that you must negotiate in good faith to keep the team here. That would be reason alone for the county and state to sue. See above. If the new owner doesn't make any gesture to move the team, there can be no lawsuit. If BJB was scouting Canadian stadium sites beginning 18 months ago---so what? Ralph was still alive and this lease wasn't. No news here. Also, the AP should already have a pretty good idea that the trust isn't selling to BJB no matter what he has or has not done to this point.
l< j Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 So if this does indeed torpedo the JBJ ship, where do we put the Wawrow statue? kj
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they? I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done?
Delete This Account Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done? it's included in the lease's wording. the "Bills" are the "Bills" no matter who owns them through the course of the lease. jw
CodeMonkey Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done? Yeah I have had that in the back of my mind the entire time as well. But companies are bound by previous contracts when they are sold to new ownership. It is the corporation that is bound by the contract, no matter who the ownership (or shareholders) are. So i suspect that applies here as well. Edit: And what jw said while we were typing at the same time Edited July 25, 2014 by CodeMonkey
Recommended Posts