A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 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. 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. Not positive but I believe it shows intent. Not sure if that would matter in this case but ...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 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. 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. The reason it's a big deal is that it is proof to Bills fans in the city (even if it was 18months ago) that the they want to move the team to Toronto. You saw the reaction from the fans who didn't bother to take the 18 months into account. And as if we needed any more proof, but it is all there in an article that will be linked for years and years. IF they win the bid (which is virtually impossible in my mind), the exodus of Bills fans in buffalo over the next eight lame duck years will be quicker. There is no way the NFL is going to agree to this. It would be an absolute nightmare for them. The article helps solidify that, especially the reaction it engendered.
thebandit27 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 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. 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. I agree. However, the simple fact that they cannot even discuss relocation during the lease makes it nigh-on impossible for relocation to occur even upon expiration of it. There's a lot that has to go into relocating a team, and to think it can all get done between the end of one season and the beginning of another is a serious leap of faith. So if this does indeed torpedo the JBJ ship, where do we put the Wawrow statue? kj I'm glad people are taking solace in the article, but the simple fact is that this doesn't shed light on anything the Trust didn't already know. Trust me, they are doing their homework...if they weren't, this whole thing would've wrapped by now. I'm wondering why any new owner would be bound by a stadium lease signed by a previous owner. Where else is that done? I don't think change in ownership precludes a valid lease for buildings in most cases, does it? I mean, the engineering company I worked for was acquired in a multimillion dollar deal, and our building lease didn't change a lick. I know it's not apples-to-apples, but why would it change?
Kelly the Dog 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 put in there so that no matter who owns the team they cannot leave, and was likely put in there because of Ralph's age. It was a way that Poloncranz could ensure the team stays.
JohnC Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 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? Pegula would not sign that (only a moron would). Why should they? Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause.
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 The reason it's a big deal is that it is proof to Bills fans in the city (even if it was 18months ago) that the they want to move the team to Toronto. You saw the reaction from the fans who didn't bother to take the 18 months into account. And as if we needed any more proof, but it is all there in an article that will be linked for years and years. IF they win the bid (which is virtually impossible in my mind), the exodus of Bills fans in buffalo over the next eight lame duck years will be quicker. There is no way the NFL is going to agree to this. It would be an absolute nightmare for them. The article helps solidify that, especially the reaction it engendered. There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that. Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article. I agree. However, the simple fact that they cannot even discuss relocation during the lease makes it nigh-on impossible for relocation to occur even upon expiration of it. There's a lot that has to go into relocating a team, and to think it can all get done between the end of one season and the beginning of another is a serious leap of faith. I'm glad people are taking solace in the article, but the simple fact is that this doesn't shed light on anything the Trust didn't already know. Trust me, they are doing their homework...if they weren't, this whole thing would've wrapped by now. I don't think change in ownership precludes a valid lease for buildings in most cases, does it? I mean, the engineering company I worked for was acquired in a multimillion dollar deal, and our building lease didn't change a lick. I know it's not apples-to-apples, but why would it change? I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it.
dave mcbride Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This is the best thread in a while. Thanks, JW!
CodeMonkey Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 [/b] Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause. I strongly suspect that agreement about the sabres was not for 35 years (or forever) and did not include a 1 Billion dollar penalty.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that. Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article. Bills fans in general and even here where almost all of them are dedicated are not as well read or well informed on these things as you or I are who follow them closely. You saw the reaction from even long time posters who should know better that it was no news. JW is about to get a French Connection Statue in front of the stadium for writing that article whether it gave actual new news or not. You're looking at it as a technical fact, and you are right. But the actual affect is palpable. Edited July 25, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
K D Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 [/b] Of course he would sign such an agrrement, and he did! When Golisano sold the Sabres to him he put a clause in the contract that if Pegula sold the team it had to be to someone who would keep the team in Buffalo. Pegula gladly signed the purchase agreement with that particular clause. that was probably easier to do in that situation because the Sabres had a new stadium. i think the big thing holding up this negotiation is the fact that the new owner will have to buy the team AND pay for a new stadium in the near future. the state won't put up as much money to keep the team here if they know the new owner signed a deal to keep them in town. that doesn't give the new owner a lot of negotiating power. it's too bad that this latest work at the Ralph was just an update and not a whole new stadium. if we had a new stadium with a locked in 30 yr lease then we could have sold to whoever we wanted after Ralph passed and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
TheFunPolice Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me? No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal. Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY. Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto. In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen. Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed. Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto. Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it. Edited July 25, 2014 by TheFunPolice
Kirby Jackson Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it. They would be buying the corporation and not just the assets so they will be bound to contracts, liabilities, receivables, etc.... The leases are typically written in a manner that the new owner will be bound to them.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Don't think this has been posted yet. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/02/niagara-bills-group-would-be-hard-to-beat-source
Kirby Jackson Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me? No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal. Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY. Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto. In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen. Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed. Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto. Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it. Agree with your sentiment. The part that is missing is WHAT has made them change course? It isn't the goodness of their hearts. Anyone thinking that the trust was EVER going to take this group at the word just doesn't get it. While this exposed their original intentions to the public this is certainly not news to the Bills brass or trust. Their changed their minds because they had to in order to have a chance. They want to own an NFL team first and an NFL team in Toronto 2nd (not the other way around).
thebandit27 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Does the fact that it was 18 months ago that they were scouting Toronto stadium locations matter to me? No, because anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to what the men in this group (especially the Toronto money men) have been saying and doing knows that moving the team to Toronto has always been their goal. Now, to the point that they have suddenly abandoned their dreams and made new plans for WNY. Nobody denies that the had plans to move the team to Toronto before. Nobody denies that their hearts were really into those plans. There seems little doubt that they were as serious as they could possibly be about it. One of the main reasons this group of businessmen joined forces was to get the NFL into Toronto. In other words, we can pretty unequivocally say that they had Toronto plans that they fully intended on executing given the chance, and plenty of money to make it happen. Yet it didn't. Those plans apparently changed. Now we are supposed to believe that they have plans for WNY and these are super extra special ones that won't fall through like their Toronto plans did. They are apparently more dedicated to the WNY plans than they were to fulfilling their dreams of an NFL team in Toronto. Sorry, I don't have a button I can hit to disconnect my ability to see complete and utter BS when I read it. I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're referring to with the "super extra special" comment. They aren't any more dedicated to these plans than they were to Toronto...the point continues to be that they won't win the bid without a guarantee to stay in the WNY area. As of now, we don't know that they have or haven't offered one. If they do, they'll be considered; if they don't, they won't. Where is the "complete and utter BS" here? Don't think this has been posted yet. http://www.torontosu...-to-beat-source Thanks for the link...that actually was posted right around the time the article was written (I'd have to see if I can find the thread...be right back) Found it: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168180-jbj-tanenbaum-and-jacobs-family-super-team/page__hl__%22niagara+bills%22 Edited July 25, 2014 by thebandit27
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Thanks for the link...that actually was posted right around the time the article was written (I'd have to see if I can find the thread...be right back) Oops. My bad. I just saw it somewhere and didn't check the date on it. I knew there were other articles written on this before. I think I even posted about this in that thread or another one. I thought, without looking, that they were regenerating this concept because they couldn't make Toronto work. Carry on.
GG 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? Pretty much everywhere. Contracts are written that they survive "successors and assigns."
4merper4mer Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) There were entire threads based on the assumption that the BJB group was a threat to move the team to Toronto. Did an article describing them scouting sites in southern Ontario really change anyone's opinion of the BJB group? Of course not. Does anyone think this is news or a surprise to the trust selling the team? No one should believe that. Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article. I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it. I don't understand why you like to post this stuff. Do you like poking at Bills fans? Do you want them to move? When your team almost moved to Hartford were you pissed? Granted it would not have been as big a deal because it was still in "New England" but it would still have been a move. Did Bills fans come around and tell you all the reasons your team should move? There is AMPLE evidence this set of bidders wants to move the team. Is it ok with you if we want the team to stay? Do you really have to go so far feigning ignorance of leases and other legal obligations and sound idiotic on purpose to poke at Bills fans? Let's ask it this way: If you bought a mom and pop corner store would you REALLY have to live up to obligations they made like a lease and their accounts payable? Answer: yes. Stop with your crap. Edited July 25, 2014 by 4merper4mer
JohnC Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't know. I'm sure an owner is welcome to keep a current lease. I was just asking why he would be bound to it. When you take over an entity, including property, you are taking over the responsibilities and liabilities associated with it by contract. That doesn't preclude you from negotiating a different deal, but it does preclude you from walking away from that which legally bounds you to the property or entity. As Bandit indicated if you take over a building that has a lease you are obligated to live up to that lease, unless it is renegotiated. Anyway, another poster was claiming that IF the BJB group was the buyer, the state or county could "sue" for......something. Not for anything revealed in thsi article. My understanding is that anyone who buys the team is subjected to the terms of the lease. One of the terms is that the new owner can not sign a deal with an intention to move. The intention to move and any act demonstrating it would be cause for litigation by the county and state. At least that is how I understand it after listening to the County Executive on a couple of radio interviews. That is why there is so much commotion from the stadium study in Toronto. .
thebandit27 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Oops. My bad. I just saw it somewhere and didn't check the date on it. I knew there were other articles written on this before. I think I even posted about this in that thread or another one. I thought, without looking, that they were regenerating this concept because they couldn't make Toronto work. Carry on. No sweat...I myself had to check to be sure.
Recommended Posts