RIP Mr Wilson

[Johnny DangerFace]

It's nice when people say nice things about nice people who die, but even Ralph has to be chuckling up there. I read one wire report that described him in the lead as the "beloved" owner of the team. It's fair to say the relationship between the fan base and the owner was "complicated."

 

Nah most fans liked him as an owner and realized we had it pretty good. Some forum and Internet fans who had the ignorant mentality that this teams incompetence was the result of RW make a small small small minority of the fans (they seem loud and vocal).

 

It's funny going to the bills thread and seeing who here had post blaming RW. Oh well, all fan bases have goofy ignorant members, especially on forums.

[qwksndmonster]

I thought the comments so far have been pretty nice. Especially for a thread dedicated to ripping Mr. Willson.

Thank you for this. I was making the joke in my head every time I read the thread title.

[Iron Crotch]

It's nice when people say nice things about nice people who die, but even Ralph has to be chuckling up there. I read one wire report that described him in the lead as the "beloved" owner of the team. It's fair to say the relationship between the fan base and the owner was "complicated."

 

I don't want to get all "Westboro" up in here, so I'll just say that my feelings for Ralph are "complicated." However, the capitalist in me certainly respects the mountain of wealth he created throughout his life. Investing $25,000 in an asset that is now worth ~$850 million is impressive.

[Stoner]

I thought the comments so far have been pretty nice. Especially for a thread dedicated to ripping Mr. Willson.

 

Not just rip, but RIP!

 

I await the meddling trial!

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet

 

Ralph Wilson called #Bills CEO Russ Brandon four days ago about a safety prospect he believed was a 3rd or 4th rounder. Amazing.

 

Ralph also was known to hire unqualified cronies.

[That Aud Smell]

This appears to be the first story to break about the Bills' near-term future.

 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bills-cannot-be-relocated-before-2020-the-long-reported-400m-buyout-option-does-not-exist/

 

Here's the digested version of the report:

The Buffalo Bills aren’t going anywhere until 2020 at the earliest, Sun Media has learned.

Not to Toronto. Not to Los Angeles. Not anywhere.

It’s Ralph Wilson’s last “enormous gift” to the people of Western New York, according to Marc Ganis, president of Sports Corp. Ltd.

Widely circulated reports since December 2012 that a $400-million buyout option exists through 2019 in the NFL franchise’s stadium lease with the state of New York and Erie County are “flat-out wrong,” Ganis told me.

[Eleven]

This appears to be the first story to break about the Bills' near-term future.

 

http://blogs.canoe.c...does-not-exist/

 

Here's the digested version of the report:

 

The Buffalo Bills aren’t going anywhere until 2020 at the earliest, Sun Media has learned.

Not to Toronto. Not to Los Angeles. Not anywhere.

It’s Ralph Wilson’s last “enormous gift” to the people of Western New York, according to Marc Ganis, president of Sports Corp. Ltd.

Widely circulated reports since December 2012 that a $400-million buyout option exists through 2019 in the NFL franchise’s stadium lease with the state of New York and Erie County are “flat-out wrong,” Ganis told me.

 

Ganis is off base with respect to the duties a tenant can be required to specifically perform. Simply put, if a breach of the lease can be remedied by an award of money damages (the purpose of the liquidated damages provision), the analysis ends there. There's no duty to stay put. Again, we really need to wait and see what the will and trust instrument(s) say.

[That Aud Smell]

Ganis is off base with respect to the duties a tenant can be required to specifically perform. Simply put, if a breach of the lease can be remedied by an award of money damages (the purpose of the liquidated damages provision), the analysis ends there. There's no duty to stay put. Again, we really need to wait and see what the will and trust instrument(s) say.

 

Man, I read it again. This is more of a non-story. The guy may have the inside scoop, but it's hard to tell given how garbled his analysis is iterated.

 

A "backup liquidated damages clause"? Either you have a liquidated damages clause, or you don't. And the idea that a new owner would "win" the right to pay a penalty of $400M is super weird. Far more likely, that would be the penalty for breaking the lease.

 

And what threshold issue can they not win in Court? The right to terminate? Makes no sense.

 

It actually sounds much more like the $400M is, in fact, a liquidated damages provision that represents the cost to break the lease before 2020.

 

EDIT: As you seem to infer, Ganis appears to be arguing that a tenant can be (specifically) enjoined to stay put in the premises. Hmm. Not so much. It's not like the Sheriff is gonna show up and force the team to stay. And you're right that the liquidated damages clause is there to place a value on an abandonment breach by the tenant, but those clauses are used (and enforced) only in situations where, as with this one, it would be nearly impossible to determine what the measure of the monetary harm would be.

Edited March 26, 2014 by That Aud Smell

[Derrico]

As someone living in the GTA I really hope the Bills stay in Buffalo. I love going up to Orchard Park for the games. Having said that, here is an interesting article from the Star today.

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2014/03/25/ralph_wilsons_death_opens_door_ever_so_slightly_for_nfl_in_toronto_kelly.html

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't want to get all "Westboro" up in here, so I'll just say that my feelings for Ralph are "complicated." However, the capitalist in me certainly respects the mountain of wealth he created throughout his life. Investing $25,000 in an asset that is now worth ~$850 million is impressive.

 

Yea I'm really not comfortable tearing into him so soon, and I certainly respect what he did for the league and that he sacrificed what I'd imagine is significant money to keep the team in Buffalo. But as far as other aspects of his ownership of the Bills goes...

[That Aud Smell]

Man, I read it again. This is more of a non-story. The guy may have the inside scoop, but it's hard to tell given how garbled his analysis is iterated.

 

A "backup liquidated damages clause"? Either you have a liquidated damages clause, or you don't. And the idea that a new owner would "win" the right to pay a penalty of $400M is super weird. Far more likely, that would be the penalty for breaking the lease.

 

And what threshold issue can they not win in Court? The right to terminate? Makes no sense.

 

It actually sounds much more like the $400M is, in fact, a liquidated damages provision that represents the cost to break the lease before 2020.

 

EDIT: As you seem to infer, Ganis appears to be arguing that a tenant can be (specifically) enjoined to stay put in the premises. Hmm. Not so much. It's not like the Sheriff is gonna show up and force the team to stay. And you're right that the liquidated damages clause is there to place a value on an abandonment breach by the tenant, but those clauses are used (and enforced) only in situations where, as with this one, it would be nearly impossible to determine what the measure of the monetary harm would be.

 

Well, here's the relocation agreement. And Ganis wasn't wrong after all. The agreement does purport to make the Bills susceptible to an injunction that prevents them from re-locating the team. That right there is a novel landlord remedy. I suspect that's why there's the backup damages clause. I think the County knows there's a real risk that a Judge will decline to order a new owner to keep a billion dollar franchise in a location where that owner does not want it. Will the Judge cite the owner with contempt if he moves the team anyway? And as I indicated above, is the Sheriff going to go out there and manhandle the movers? Just a messy set of scenarios.

 

To me, this is not unlike an employment agreement that contains a clause that purports to allow the employer to compel you to remain in your position. Indentured servitude's over.

 

It is a slightly different issue when you're talking about a franchise, a business. Even so. "Specific performance" against a tenant is a legal remedy that strikes me as unusual, if not outright problematic.

 

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

Edited March 27, 2014 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

Well, here's the relocation agreement. And Ganis wasn't wrong after all. The agreement does purport to make the Bills susceptible to an injunction that prevents them from re-locating the team. That right there is a novel landlord remedy. I suspect that's why there's the backup damages clause. I think the County knows there's a real risk that a Judge will decline to order a new owner to keep a billion dollar franchise in a location where that owner does not want it. Will the Judge cite the owner with contempt if he moves the team anyway? And as I indicated above, is the Sheriff going to go out there and manhandle the movers? Just a messy set of scenarios.

 

To me, this is not unlike an employment agreement that contains a clause that purports to allow the employer to compel you to remain in your position. Indentured servitude's over.

 

It is a slightly different issue when you're talking about a franchise, a business. Even so. "Specific performance" against a tenant is a legal remedy that strikes me as unusual, if not outright problematic.

 

http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf

 

The inclusion of the LD clause is pretty much all I need to understand the County's own belief in the strength of the specific performance clause.

 

Most of the other agreements that comprise the landlord-tenant relationship can be viewed here: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/index.php?q=buffalo-bills-stadium-lease

 

As for me, I can't wait to see the will.

[That Aud Smell]

The inclusion of the LD clause is pretty much all I need to understand the County's own belief in the strength of the specific performance clause.

 

Word.

 

As for me, I can't wait to see the will.

 

Waiting on those trust instruments, myself.

[nfreeman]

The inclusion of the LD clause is pretty much all I need to understand the County's own belief in the strength of the specific performance clause.

 

Most of the other agreements that comprise the landlord-tenant relationship can be viewed here: http://www2.erie.gov...s-stadium-lease

 

As for me, I can't wait to see the will.

Word.

 

Waiting on those trust instruments, myself.

 

Well, the LD clause doesn't necessarily mean the County isn't confident in the enforceability of the specific performance clause -- it could very likely be simply a "don't even think about breaching" hammer.

 

Is the will going to be made public?

[That Aud Smell]

Well, the LD clause doesn't necessarily mean the County isn't confident in the enforceability of the specific performance clause -- it could very likely be simply a "don't even think about breaching" hammer.

 

well, in that case, then there is a $400M buyout clause. call it something else if you want, but that is what it is.

 

if i'm a prospective owner, then, the cost to relocate the team to where i want them to be is, at present, roughly $1B [franchise] + $1B [new stadium]** + $400M + $275M [NFL relocation fee]*** = $2.675B.

 

**no idea how much of that would come from public money.

***that's what the NFL is said to be demanding for moving the chargers to L.A.

 

Is the will going to be made public?

 

very unlikely. but its contents and effect will be made known at some point. same with the trust instruments.

[nfreeman]

well, in that case, then there is a $400M buyout clause. call it something else if you want, but that is what it is.

 

if i'm a prospective owner, then, the cost to relocate the team to where i want them to be is, at present, roughly $1B [franchise] + $1B [new stadium]** + $400M + $275M [NFL relocation fee]*** = $2.675B.

 

**no idea how much of that would come from public money.

***that's what the NFL is said to be demanding for moving the chargers to L.A.

 

Perhaps, but I meant that the county quite likely thought the specific performance clause would be enforceable, and just included the LD clause as a backup in the event the specific performance clause were held to be not enforceable.

 

I'll leave it to someone who's actually litigated a specific performance clause in NYS to opine with real knowledge, but it seems to me that this is the type of situation where a specific performance clause very likely could be enforceable.

 

Of course, there's still that cheap escape clause in 2020 to provide plenty of anxiety and dread...

Edited March 27, 2014 by nfreeman

[That Aud Smell]

but it seems to me that this is the type of situation where a specific performance clause very likely could be enforceable.

 

i've litigated several specific performance clauses. i've never heard of, nor imagined, a clause that would compel an entity to continue to do business at a facility it leases from an owner. that doesn't mean that's never happened before. compelling an owner to continue to lease premises to a tenant -- that's common enough. but compelling a tenant to stay put? like i said, that is a potentially very messy scenario.

[Eleven]

Perhaps, but I meant that the county quite likely thought the specific performance clause would be enforceable, and just included the LD clause as a backup in the event the specific performance clause were held to be not enforceable.

 

I'll leave it to someone who's actually litigated a specific performance clause in NYS to opine with real knowledge, but it seems to me that this is the type of situation where a specific performance clause very likely could be enforceable.

 

Of course, there's still that cheap escape clause in 2020 to provide plenty of anxiety and dread...

 

Guys like you are always trying to draft the ironclad agreement & guys like me are always trying to poke a hole in it!

 

I'm w/ Aud on this one.

[Stoner]

Will there be a dramatic reading of the will? "And Eddie Abramoski's jar of medicated Tucks pads goes tooooo… Ghost of Dwight Drane!"

[Eleven]

Will there be a dramatic reading of the will? "And Eddie Abramoski's jar of medicated Tucks pads goes tooooo… Ghost of Dwight Drane!"

 

Or a video, like Brewster's Millions.

 

I know nothing of Michigan probate procedure. I have no idea whether the will becomes a public record.

[nfreeman]

i've litigated several specific performance clauses. i've never heard of, nor imagined, a clause that would compel an entity to continue to do business at a facility it leases from an owner. that doesn't mean that's never happened before. compelling an owner to continue to lease premises to a tenant -- that's common enough. but compelling a tenant to stay put? like i said, that is a potentially very messy scenario.

Guys like you are always trying to draft the ironclad agreement & guys like me are always trying to poke a hole in it!

 

I'm w/ Aud on this one.

 

Well, I'm sure you guys know this one better than I do. Still, though, this is a pretty unique situation -- not a garden-variety landlord-tenant scenario -- so maybe more susceptible to equitable remedies? And probably litigated in NYS court, which presumably would favor the granting of specific performance?

 

In any case, the real answer is not a court victory but another TP-type gift from heaven -- but 2 of those in a 5-year span is probably too much to hope for. And even if it happens, there will be always be a percentage of the population that doesn't trust him and is inclined to criticize...

 

Will there be a dramatic reading of the will? "And Eddie Abramoski's jar of medicated Tucks pads goes tooooo… Ghost of Dwight Drane!"

 

Speak of the devil!

 

But this was pretty funny.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Or a video, like Brewster's Millions.

 

I know nothing of Michigan probate procedure. I have no idea whether the will becomes a public record.

 

I was thinking Scavenger Hunt. 5 points for a tuna melt, 20 points for a ticket stub from the comeback game, 30 points for a Whammie Weenie, 50 points for a '87 Taurus with a cassette player.

[Eleven]

Well, I'm sure you guys know this one better than I do. Still, though, this is a pretty unique situation -- not a garden-variety landlord-tenant scenario -- so maybe more susceptible to equitable remedies? And probably litigated in NYS court, which presumably would favor the granting of specific performance?

 

In any case, the real answer is not a court victory but another TP-type gift from heaven -- but 2 of those in a 5-year span is probably too much to hope for. And even if it happens, there will be always be a percentage of the population that doesn't trust him and is inclined to criticize...

 

 

 

Speak of the devil!

 

But this was pretty funny.

 

I think it would be removed to federal court in a nanosecond because any buyer who wanted to move the team would use an out-of-state corporation.

 

I'm thinking about "can't go dark" provisions in shopping mall leases, and breaches of those are remedied with money damages.

[MattPie]

Will there be a dramatic reading of the will? "And Eddie Abramoski's jar of medicated Tucks pads goes tooooo… Ghost of Dwight Drane!"

 

Maybe we can get, d4ark to do it. (Didn't he do those awesome voice over videos a couple years ago?)

[That Aud Smell]

I think it would be removed to federal court in a nanosecond because any buyer who wanted to move the team would use an out-of-state corporation.

 

If Erie County were to sue it in State Supreme, you may be right that removal would then follow.

 

Here's the forum clause from that agreement:

 

Each Party hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County, or the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

Each Party expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction and waives any claim that Erie County, New York or the Western District of New York is an inconvenient forum or an improper forum based on improper venue. Each Party agrees to service of process in any form or manner permitted by law, addressed to it as set forth in Section 8(b). Each Party agrees not to institute suit arising out of this Agreement against any other Party in a court in any jurisdiction, except as stated above, without the consent of such other Party. Each Party agrees that a true, correct and complete copy of this Agreement kept in the County’s, the ECSC’s or the Bills’

course of business may be admitted into evidence as an original.

[darksabre]

 

 

Maybe we can get, d4ark to do it. (Didn't he do those awesome voice over videos a couple years ago?)

 

I'm all over it.