Bills new stadium lease is not ironclad

Investing $850 million of public funds in a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills is a heavy lift for taxpayers. The elected officials who negotiated those terms have offered us the solace that it keeps the team here for at least another 30 years.

It’s an ironclad lease, they’ve assured us.

But it’s not.

And the state of the team’s ownership – Terry Pegula, in his 70s, and his wife Kim, dealing with serious health issues that keep her away from the team – only heighten concerns about the team’s long-term prospects in Western New York.

The memorandum of understanding between the state, county and team allows for the relocation of the team if the Bills owners pay back the $850 million in public funds spent to construct the stadium, plus any capital improvements, and the cost to demolish it, if the state’s stadium authority so desires. After 15 years, the penalties to relocate start to steadily decrease.

The only recourse the state and county would have is litigation in an effort to stop the team from moving. I can’t recall a court ever blocking a major league sports franchise from moving, however.

Now, $850 million, give or take, might sound like a huge disincentive. At least until you consider the escalating value of NFL franchises. The Pegulas bought the team for $1.4 billion. Today it’s worth an estimated $3.4 billion. What are the Bills going to be worth five, ten, fifteen years down the road? A whole lot more.

Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter


Suppose the Pegulas decided to sell. Or Terry dies or ages out and Kim is in no position to carry on. 

Is there anyone in Western New York rich enough to buy the team and keep it here? 

I doubt it. 

Could the team be handed down to the Pegula children, assuming they even wanted it? Only if the kids could pony up the federal estate tax, equivalent to 40 percent of the value of the team. That would come to, what, three, four, five billion dollars? 

Again, I doubt it.

That could leave the Bills  – and the community – at the mercy of an out-of-town buyer.  No doubt a gazillionaire. If he or she dropped upwards of $10 billion to buy the team and bring it home with him, do you think spending up to $1 billion to break the lease would dissuade him or her? 

Again, I doubt it.

Yeah, but wouldn’t league owners put a stop to it? 

You mean the same team owners who in recent years have approved teams leaving Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis? 

The same crew that previously allowed the Colts to abandon Baltimore and the Browns, Cleveland? (Iconic franchises, I might add.)

The same owners who have imposed relocation fees on teams and then split the proceeds among themselves? Each NFL team pocketed $55.2 million in relocation fees charged collectively to the Rams, Raiders and Chargers when they left town. Talk about easy money, and an incentive to continue to allow for the movement of franchises.


Donate to support our nonprofit newsroom


All this behooves the state and county to ask an uncomfortable question: What’s up with the Pegulas?

I mean, they own the team and Kim was a very hands-on president. She’s no longer on the scene since suffering an apparently serious illness seven months ago.

The Pegula family has been tight lipped about Kim’s condition and prognosis and has asked for the press and public to respect their privacy. That’s understandable, to a point. 

But it’s not unreasonable for the taxpaying public and the government officials negotiating the stadium deal on their behalf to know the state of the team’s ownership before making a final commitment to fork over $850 million to help build the $1.4 billion stadium.

Wouldn’t an investment group want to know about the ownership of a business before it invests in it?

The Pegulas bought the Sabres in 2011 and the Bills three years later. Kim, in time, ascended to president of both teams and by all accounts has been very hands-on. 

She was hospitalized in early June for what was described as an “unexpected illness.” No details were provided. 

Later that month, Pegula Sports and Entertainment issued a statement that said: “Kim is progressing well and is resting and rehabilitating from a health issue.” Three days later, her tennis star daughter Jessica told reporters at Wimbledon that her mother is “doing a lot better now.” 

Another daughter, Kelly, posted comments in September on her Instagram account that featured a photo of her with her mother in happier times that started out: “This is a tough birthday for me. Been a rough few months.”

Meanwhile, it appears Kim Pegula has been completely absent from the operations of the Bills and Sabres. That’s quite a departure, as one source told me that before her illness, “everything ran through her.”

It’s clear something serious is going on with her.


Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & YouTube


Terry, meanwhile, has continued his low-key ownership, attending many Bills games but rarely speaking in public. Comments described as “incoherent” that he made in December to fellow NFL owners were noted in a story by CBS Sports. The topic was criticism of the league’s scouting combine.

Bills owner Terry Pegula took to the microphone to make a point that confused many in the room. According to sources, Pegula didn’t condone the combine weigh-ins (which aren’t televised) but seemed to play a devil’s advocate role that it’s ultimately what people want to see.

He then tried to bridge football with women’s tennis, the sport of his daughter, Jessica, who is ranked No. 3 in the world. The Bills owner appeared to bemoan the sometimes-revealing outfits that he said women tennis players are encouraged to wear. Some sources construed his comments to mean that sports all have some level of exploitation. Another source simply called them “incoherent.” The conversation came to an end shortly after Pegula’s confusing comments.

Much like how many Bills fans worried about the team’s fate as Ralph Wilson got on in years, it’s not unreasonable to have similar concerns about the team’s not-a-spring-chicken owner (71) if his much younger wife (53) is not in a position to carry on.

It seems to me that Gov. Kathy Hochul and Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz – whose offices refused my interview requests – need to do their homework and answer the following questions:

  • Are there examples of real ironclad leases from around the league that should be considered for our stadium here?
  • How is the Bills ownership structured? Do Terry and Kim own the team 50-50? Are the kids involved?
  • Do the Pegulas have a succession plan in place and, if so, what is it?
  • What kind of shape are Terry – and especially, Kim – really in and what is their prognosis for the long term? 

These are not academic questions. Answering them is required due diligence if the interests of taxpayers and fans are to be respected. The time to do so is now, before it’s too late. And time, according to the governor, is running out, as a final deal is pending.

I hope Kim recovers and that she and Terry live long lives and the Bills (and Sabres) stay in Buffalo forever. But there’s too much at stake to simply hope for the best.

The post Bills new stadium lease is not ironclad appeared first on Investigative Post.

Related articles

Trump CAUGHT ON TAPE Violating MULTIPLE COURT ORDERS

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas shows multiple examples...

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.

Governor Hochul Declares State of Emergency and Announces Response to Federal Food Assistance Cuts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwEIjwPUvJY Washington Republicans are cutting off food assistance...