Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

City of St. Louis is suing NFL over Rams relocation
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JaguarCrazy2832


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 90661
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isnt this something that should be figured out before they move?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8227
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: City of St. Louis is suing NFL over Rams relocation Reply with quote

MathMan wrote:
RaidersAreOne wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2017/04/12/st-louis-sues-nfl-rams-relocation-los-angeles-owners-teams/100379128/

Quote:
St. Louis sues NFL, all 32 teams over Rams' relocation to Los Angeles

The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have filed a lawsuit against the Rams and the NFL over the team's move to Los Angeles.

The complaint submitted to the Circuit Court of St. Louis on Wednesday lists all 32 teams as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege the Rams and the NFL violated the standards of team relocations and breached its contract with the city. The suit says the Rams made intentional false claims that only enriched themselves and damaged the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are asking the court to force the Rams to give up the profits they made in the relocation, award punitive damages and grant any other necessary or appropriate relief.


Thoughts?


All 32 teams?
What the hell did the Packers ever do?


I know what my team did to them
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67961
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non-Issue wrote:
ramssuperbowl99 wrote:
This looks like political grandstanding. There are parts of the lease that they could legitimately challenge (e.g. Kroenke believes he still has the right to buy a practice facility for $1, but the city could argue that was part of the lease, which is now terminated, so he can't). This isn't really one of them.

The only way around this situation is to have voters realize what a horrible idea putting taxpayer dollars into stadiums is.


I think voters in many cities do realize that. Which is why some cities/states (St Louis recently) completely bypassed the voters.

If the public's money is funding an incredibly expensive and unnecessary thing like a football stadium, its ridiculous to not be required to get the public's approval. Its THEIR money.


As I recall (my recollection might be wrong), they were getting around it by using taxes tied to the tourism industry.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiwibrown


Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 3175
Location: NZ
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the middle class pay for everything.
_________________
I survived Johannesburg, 2013.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raiderrocker18


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 4836
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bulger2holt return to FF in 3...2..1...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StLunatic88


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 8152
Location: Watch out for In Your Ear
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
St. Louis has no legs to stand on. I'm not sure if the NFL will even settle. Won't be surprised if this case gets kicked quickly.
They actually have a pretty darn good case here, and it all comes down the one very specific and important line in the lease "in good faith". All the clauses about top X% of amenities and standards of the dome and the $1 for the practice facility all only applies if the Rams were operating "in good faith".

Which is exactly why this suit took over a year to bring against the NFL. St Louis let Kronke, Demoff and Fisher all shoot themselves in the foot. Quotes about Kronke being in Inglewood at 5 a.m. And knowing that was the spot for the new stadium, years before negotiations even started. Fisher admitting that he was told the team was moving when he interviewed for the job. And the charade that Demoff put on about the team and city working together.

Also, because of the Chiefs, this case is not being taken to the Federal level. The NFL technically still operates in Missouri, so this is being taken to court at the state level, not nearly as favorable for the league. Not to mention, none of those guys (Kroenke, Demoff, Fisher, Goodell, and all the other owners) want to be deposed in court.

The NFL has been on the loosing side of court battles much more than the winning, and this could very well be another one in the Loss column.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
H2ThaIzzo


Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 5452
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

StLunatic88 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
St. Louis has no legs to stand on. I'm not sure if the NFL will even settle. Won't be surprised if this case gets kicked quickly.
They actually have a pretty darn good case here, and it all comes down the one very specific and important line in the lease "in good faith". All the clauses about top X% of amenities and standards of the dome and the $1 for the practice facility all only applies if the Rams were operating "in good faith".

Which is exactly why this suit took over a year to bring against the NFL. St Louis let Kronke, Demoff and Fisher all shoot themselves in the foot. Quotes about Kronke being in Inglewood at 5 a.m. And knowing that was the spot for the new stadium, years before negotiations even started. Fisher admitting that he was told the team was moving when he interviewed for the job. And the charade that Demoff put on about the team and city working together.

Also, because of the Chiefs, this case is not being taken to the Federal level. The NFL technically still operates in Missouri, so this is being taken to court at the state level, not nearly as favorable for the league. Not to mention, none of those guys (Kroenke, Demoff, Fisher, Goodell, and all the other owners) want to be deposed in court.

The NFL has been on the loosing side of court battles much more than the winning, and this could very well be another one in the Loss column.


I hope this is the outcome we see. If the guy wanted out, and wanted to move the team to LA, why even put STL in a situation where they are paying millons to come up with stadium plans to try and compete, when the outcome was already decided?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19588
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

StLunatic88 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
St. Louis has no legs to stand on. I'm not sure if the NFL will even settle. Won't be surprised if this case gets kicked quickly.
They actually have a pretty darn good case here, and it all comes down the one very specific and important line in the lease "in good faith". All the clauses about top X% of amenities and standards of the dome and the $1 for the practice facility all only applies if the Rams were operating "in good faith".

Which is exactly why this suit took over a year to bring against the NFL. St Louis let Kronke, Demoff and Fisher all shoot themselves in the foot. Quotes about Kronke being in Inglewood at 5 a.m. And knowing that was the spot for the new stadium, years before negotiations even started. Fisher admitting that he was told the team was moving when he interviewed for the job. And the charade that Demoff put on about the team and city working together.

Also, because of the Chiefs, this case is not being taken to the Federal level. The NFL technically still operates in Missouri, so this is being taken to court at the state level, not nearly as favorable for the league. Not to mention, none of those guys (Kroenke, Demoff, Fisher, Goodell, and all the other owners) want to be deposed in court.

The NFL has been on the loosing side of court battles much more than the winning
, and this could very well be another one in the Loss column.
No they haven't the decisions against them have been overturned by higher courts who are held to a higher standard of following the law. I can't think of the last court case the NFL actually lost.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non-Issue


Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Posts: 1446
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raiderrocker18 wrote:
bulger2holt return to FF in 3...2..1...


Meh, this is a total non issue.
_________________

Kiltman on the sig!

2016 Adopt-a-Ram Jared Goff:
Comp:99 Att:185 Yards:969 TD:5 INT:7 Rating:65.7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ramssuperbowl99


Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 34451
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

StLunatic88 wrote:
Which is exactly why this suit took over a year to bring against the NFL. St Louis let Kronke, Demoff and Fisher all shoot themselves in the foot. Quotes about Kronke being in Inglewood at 5 a.m. And knowing that was the spot for the new stadium, years before negotiations even started. Fisher admitting that he was told the team was moving when he interviewed for the job. And the charade that Demoff put on about the team and city working together.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this proves that the Rams failed to meet the standard of negotiating "in good faith". They very well could have known that whatever offer it would take to keep the Rams in St. Louis wouldn't have been matched, but still gave the city a chance to meet that (albeit insanely unrealistic) bar.

Was Kroenke a liar when he bought the team and promised to keep them in St. Louis? 100%. But I still think he fulfilled the legal requirement for listening to the city's proposals.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Don't question Rams. He runs this place. He is The Man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67961
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

StLunatic88 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
St. Louis has no legs to stand on. I'm not sure if the NFL will even settle. Won't be surprised if this case gets kicked quickly.
They actually have a pretty darn good case here, and it all comes down the one very specific and important line in the lease "in good faith". All the clauses about top X% of amenities and standards of the dome and the $1 for the practice facility all only applies if the Rams were operating "in good faith".

Which is exactly why this suit took over a year to bring against the NFL. St Louis let Kronke, Demoff and Fisher all shoot themselves in the foot. Quotes about Kronke being in Inglewood at 5 a.m. And knowing that was the spot for the new stadium, years before negotiations even started. Fisher admitting that he was told the team was moving when he interviewed for the job. And the charade that Demoff put on about the team and city working together.

The NFL has been on the loosing side of court battles much more than the winning, and this could very well be another one in the Loss column.


That's why St. Louis has a terrible case. "In good faith" is a very low bar to meet. The fact that the Rams negotiated with them, went to arbitration, and heard them out on the riverfront stadium is likely going to meet that requirement. The Rams are not required to pass up a better business deal because they have to negotiate "in good faith."

You never can fully know what will happen, but bad faith is pretty difficult to prove.

Personally, I think the Rams shouldn't exercise the $1 option after the crap they just pulled. It's rubbing salt in the wound.

Quote:
Also, because of the Chiefs, this case is not being taken to the Federal level. The NFL technically still operates in Missouri, so this is being taken to court at the state level, not nearly as favorable for the league. Not to mention, none of those guys (Kroenke, Demoff, Fisher, Goodell, and all the other owners) want to be deposed in court.


My expectation is that the NFL will dismiss the Chiefs and all the other teams except the Rams as defendants because they weren't parties to the lease. I'd have to research to see if that will be successful or not, but if it is, the NFL will be able to remove the case to federal court.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kgarrett12486


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 11809
Location: Busch III
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.101sports.com/podcasts/espns-lester-munson-says-the-nfl-is-a-tall-task-but-thinks-st-louis-could-get-an-edge-on-kroenke/

Good breakdown by Lester Munson...
_________________

Rammy on the sig...
RIP "El Fenomeno" - Oscar Taveras
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group