CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Will not happen. I wouldn't be quite so positive. Obviously the sooner the better from the perspective of both the trust and the NFL. But if the trust does not get a bid it likes under the current restrictive parameters they have created, I could see them doing a full reset and start again with newer, perhaps less restrictive, parameters. Remember, to us it is a football team that we follow. For the trust beneficiaries we are talking about potentially 100's of millions of dollars here. Not chump change to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 All Forbes coverage since this process began has read like the writer(s) have an axe to grind. I take it with a dump truck full of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I try and base it off of who has been reporting info the most accurately. John Wawrow has been a very reliable source, same with John Kryk. Tim Graham has been hit or miss. Not being an ass...but how do we/you know that anything being reported by any of these guys is accurate? Everything has come from sources no? So until the actual sale takes place, is there a way to know who has more accurate info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 All Forbes coverage since this process began has read like the writer(s) have an axe to grind. I take it with a dump truck full of salt. Forbes coverage is a joke. We have better info on the process on this board than they are using to write that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Not being an ass...but how do we/you know that anything being reported by any of these guys is accurate? Everything has come from sources no? So until the actual sale takes place, is there a way to know who has more accurate info? Quite true. Especially when it comes to what was bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I wouldn't be quite so positive. Obviously the sooner the better from the perspective of both the trust and the NFL. But if the trust does not get a bid it likes under the current restrictive parameters they have created, I could see them doing a full reset and start again with newer, perhaps less restrictive, parameters. Remember, to us it is a football team that we follow. For the trust beneficiaries we are talking about potentially 100's of millions of dollars here. Not chump change to anyone. The trust is the entity looking for assurances of the team staying in Buffalo for the long term. They must have an understanding that this condition lowers the amount that they will ultimately receive as the final sale price. I see no sense in a reset of the entire process. The sale will be completed before the year is out IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Forbes coverage is a joke. We have better info on the process on this board than they are using to write that crap. Love it The trust is the entity looking for assurances of the team staying in Buffalo for the long term. They must have an understanding that this condition lowers the amount that they will ultimately receive as the final sale price. I see no sense in a reset of the entire process. The sale will be completed before the year is out IMO. Your guess is at least as good as mine obviously. But they may have been expecting it to go from 1.5 to 1.4ish. Maybe not 1.5 to 1.0 or less. We will see. But I think everyone here including me would prefer to see it wrapped up by years end at the latest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kiko go Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Basically, the Bills can't break the lease until the windows in 2019-2020. There is a penalty of $20 or so should they exercise the out. That's the ONLY out in the contract. Should the Bills try to leave early they would be attempting to break a contract. There is a negotiated minimum penalty both parties have agreed to, $400 million, should that attempt be made. It's not an out. They still would have to sue the county (or the county sue them). This would take a lot of time--years, perhaps. The contract would almost certainly be upheld in court. In the very unlikely event the court allows the team to move (and when would that decision come?) they can make the team pay any penalty they like---possibly more than the $400. So the $400 isn't a "pay it and move" thing, It's a pay it, go to court (in Erie County, I think), fight the contract---all knowing you are paying that $400 million if/when you lose in court. The $400M liquidated damages amount can be thought of as a fallback remedy. If a party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to receive what they expected to receive had the contract not been breached. For the county and state, that is having the Bills play in Ralph Wilson Stadium for the term of the lease. Often in the world of contracts, if one party breaches, the other party can be put in the place they would have been if the contract wasn't breached by having the breaching party pay money to the non-breaching party. If you're a small business and order some supplies from another company that fails to deliver, and you have to pay more to go get the supplies from someone else, your supplier who breached can just pay you the extra cost. But sometimes money isn't an adequate substitute for what you were promised in the contract. Imagine a contract to purchase a one-of-a-kind painting, for example. In that case, rather than seeking money damages from the breaching party, you can ask a court to order the breaching party to do something, like follow through with selling you the painting. The Bills are like that painting. Just paying the county and state money doesn't necessarily replace all the intangible things they lose if the Bills leave. So if the Bills breach, the county and state won't go into court asking for the $400M, they'll ask the judge to order the Bills to stay. The $400M is just a fallback in case the judge declines to enter such an order, just like the fallback for not receiving the one-of-a-kind painting would be a payment in the amount of the painting's appraisal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The $400M liquidated damages amount can be thought of as a fallback remedy. If a party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to receive what they expected to receive had the contract not been breached. For the county and state, that is having the Bills play in Ralph Wilson Stadium for the term of the lease. Often in the world of contracts, if one party breaches, the other party can be put in the place they would have been if the contract wasn't breached by having the breaching party pay money to the non-breaching party. If you're a small business and order some supplies from another company that fails to deliver, and you have to pay more to go get the supplies from someone else, your supplier who breached can just pay you the extra cost. But sometimes money isn't an adequate substitute for what you were promised in the contract. Imagine a contract to purchase a one-of-a-kind painting, for example. In that case, rather than seeking money damages from the breaching party, you can ask a court to order the breaching party to do something, like follow through with selling you the painting. The Bills are like that painting. Just paying the county and state money doesn't necessarily replace all the intangible things they lose if the Bills leave. So if the Bills breach, the county and state won't go into court asking for the $400M, they'll ask the judge to order the Bills to stay. The $400M is just a fallback in case the judge declines to enter such an order, just like the fallback for not receiving the one-of-a-kind painting would be a payment in the amount of the painting's appraisal. Great breakdown of a complex issue - thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The $400M liquidated damages amount can be thought of as a fallback remedy. If a party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to receive what they expected to receive had the contract not been breached. For the county and state, that is having the Bills play in Ralph Wilson Stadium for the term of the lease. Often in the world of contracts, if one party breaches, the other party can be put in the place they would have been if the contract wasn't breached by having the breaching party pay money to the non-breaching party. If you're a small business and order some supplies from another company that fails to deliver, and you have to pay more to go get the supplies from someone else, your supplier who breached can just pay you the extra cost. But sometimes money isn't an adequate substitute for what you were promised in the contract. Imagine a contract to purchase a one-of-a-kind painting, for example. In that case, rather than seeking money damages from the breaching party, you can ask a court to order the breaching party to do something, like follow through with selling you the painting. The Bills are like that painting. Just paying the county and state money doesn't necessarily replace all the intangible things they lose if the Bills leave. So if the Bills breach, the county and state won't go into court asking for the $400M, they'll ask the judge to order the Bills to stay. The $400M is just a fallback in case the judge declines to enter such an order, just like the fallback for not receiving the one-of-a-kind painting would be a payment in the amount of the painting's appraisal. Very nice clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 Nice breakdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) This has been an occasional misunderstanding on these boards for a while. According to the Non-Relocation Agreement (and I have read it), the team cannot be sold to a group with plans to move the team within the timeframe of the NRA. That does not preclude the sale to a group that plans to move the team after the NRA has expired. That's the lease, has nothing to do with the Trust refusing to sell to a buyer trying to relocate or the NFL telling potential owners the team is not moving Edited August 21, 2014 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ya know, I still get PO'd at the lack of interest and the lack of concern when the Jags sold for 780 million a couple of years ago, but the Bills value is suddenly the most important and interesting thing going on for the NFL. What makes you think that is truly the case? But if you are correct the reasoning is probably because it's happening now, which makes it important and interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) Why doesn't Mary just step in and end all these rumors. Really? Does she need more money? Edited August 21, 2014 by Direhard Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 @AdamBenigni Source close to #Bills sale process tells me Forbes bid numbers are "in range." http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/08/21/three-bids-for-buffalo-bills-are-each-below-900-million/ … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) Why doesn't Mary just step in and end all these rumors. Really? Does she need more money? I'm guessing she is ignoring all the rumors, which is probably a good idea for the rest of us. Bids will be submitted in 2 weeks, we will know who will own the team shortly after that. Let's watch some football in the meantime and relax.And it's really not a matter of 'does she need the money' it's her property for sale, she will get what she can. If she was really in it for the money, she wouldn't have a clause making it virtually impossible for the new owner to move the team. That is probably costing her a few hundred million - leave her be. Edited August 21, 2014 by klos63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's just me I guess, but in lieu of facts, I understand people who believe everything that is reported. And I also understand people who believe nothing of what is reported. But it's the pick and choose to believe some but not others that I don't understand. Like I said, just me. I'm sure it makes sense to you. Why do you believe that the team is even for sale then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Why do you believe that the team is even for sale then? Possibly because that isn't a rumor or reported via an "unnamed source not involved with the sale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The author shows his obvious bias, suggesting Morgan Stanley be fired and the owner do things to "raise interest in the team." When you consider his last article posits that the average NFL team is worth 1.43B is certainly seems like he badly wants the team to be sold for a number that is closer to his personal valuation. Why fire the seller after the INITIAL round of bidding? All the first round did was to weed out people who weren't serious contenders and give them a chance to present their plans for the future of the franchise. It's obvious the sale comes with stipulations beyond merely money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 http://blogs.canoe.c...ss-sources-say/ "One source said that barring a significant development, or reformation of the group, the Toronto trio is likelier to disband than submit a binding, definitive bid early next month along with the other finalists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts