^ Yep. That was pretty much BenFred's take. Fisher is thirsty to get back into the NFL so he doesn't want to rock the boat.
From the Business Journal:
Rams dealt another setback in relocation lawsuit
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
The United States Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court ruling that would allow for a trial for St. Louis’ relocation lawsuit.
Rams dealt another setback in relocation lawsuit
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
The United States Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court ruling that would allow for a trial for St. Louis’ relocation lawsuit.
- 3,767
Let’s say the settlement ends up being huge for St. Louis. (I have no idea what the end game will be, but let’s assume it is very favorable. Would you rather have the following result:
Please choose the option you most prefer and explain. Thanks!
A) St. Louis is given a new team (expansion or rebranded Charger franchise w/ local owners) with ironclad 30-year lease, Dome renovations to get up to 2020 standards, Rams park lease and all expenses paid back from effort to keep Rams ($20M).
B) $200-$350M cash back to the CVC, City, County etc.
C) No settlement. Will take our chances so we can see stanK, Goodell and his cronies take the stand and admit the fix was in & the process was rigged. Under this scenario, nothing is guaranteed, we are at the mercy of the judicial system. What we have to gain could be similar to option B, but we also get to expose the corrupt cartel-like behavior of the NFL. There is also a chance we lose and get nothing. Then we have egg all over our faces. If STL prevails there could be more attorney fees, appeals and delays, before the money gets back to the region’s coffers.
As much as I hate to say it, I would choose option A. Assuming the franchise has a local majority, an ironclad lease and is not treated unfairly by the league.
Please choose the option you most prefer and explain. Thanks!
A) St. Louis is given a new team (expansion or rebranded Charger franchise w/ local owners) with ironclad 30-year lease, Dome renovations to get up to 2020 standards, Rams park lease and all expenses paid back from effort to keep Rams ($20M).
B) $200-$350M cash back to the CVC, City, County etc.
C) No settlement. Will take our chances so we can see stanK, Goodell and his cronies take the stand and admit the fix was in & the process was rigged. Under this scenario, nothing is guaranteed, we are at the mercy of the judicial system. What we have to gain could be similar to option B, but we also get to expose the corrupt cartel-like behavior of the NFL. There is also a chance we lose and get nothing. Then we have egg all over our faces. If STL prevails there could be more attorney fees, appeals and delays, before the money gets back to the region’s coffers.
As much as I hate to say it, I would choose option A. Assuming the franchise has a local majority, an ironclad lease and is not treated unfairly by the league.
- 2,419
I would take Option A, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that that's what happens.
The NFL won't do that for St. Louis when they're also in a pending lawsuit against the city of Oakland.
So I'll just take Option B.
The NFL won't do that for St. Louis when they're also in a pending lawsuit against the city of Oakland.
So I'll just take Option B.
In those choices option A
But I think option B is a much higher number. And I don’t think option A is a real option.
But I think option B is a much higher number. And I don’t think option A is a real option.
- 474
I'd like to say B but I think it would get spread too thin to have any real impact so I'll go with C. If we lose and get nothing we can play the martyr.
- 3,767
I agree that option A is very unlikely, but you just never know. The NFL will do anything to make a buck or save a buck. I also agree that the impact of a big money settlement would likely be minimal, considering how it will have to be divided amongst regional authorities.
Regarding Oakland, I don’t believe they have as good a case as STL. We were boldly lied to by the NFL and the Rams. They kept leading us on and lying. Then the arrogant SOBs bragged about how they had plans back as far as 2013. Demoff basically laughed in our faces while speaking at various engagements after the move was approved. In the case of the Raiders, they were playing in an ancient football stadium and I believe Davis wanted to stay in Oakland. Oakland shot down every vote to keep the Raiders, via various new stadium proposals. It may have been shady, but none of the 3 cities got the shaft as much as STL did. SD had their chances to keep the Chargers, but were unwilling to build Spanos a venue. The NFL lied and cost our region big. They did whatever it takes to get the Rams to LA, knowing stanK was the only owner that had to money to conquer LA. St. Louis was basically collateral damage. They did whatever they could to extract money from our region, while planning the move all along. They didn’t care that the riverfront plan was costing our region millions. That is where the screw-job they put on STL differs to that of OAK and SD.
Regarding Oakland, I don’t believe they have as good a case as STL. We were boldly lied to by the NFL and the Rams. They kept leading us on and lying. Then the arrogant SOBs bragged about how they had plans back as far as 2013. Demoff basically laughed in our faces while speaking at various engagements after the move was approved. In the case of the Raiders, they were playing in an ancient football stadium and I believe Davis wanted to stay in Oakland. Oakland shot down every vote to keep the Raiders, via various new stadium proposals. It may have been shady, but none of the 3 cities got the shaft as much as STL did. SD had their chances to keep the Chargers, but were unwilling to build Spanos a venue. The NFL lied and cost our region big. They did whatever it takes to get the Rams to LA, knowing stanK was the only owner that had to money to conquer LA. St. Louis was basically collateral damage. They did whatever they could to extract money from our region, while planning the move all along. They didn’t care that the riverfront plan was costing our region millions. That is where the screw-job they put on STL differs to that of OAK and SD.
- 2,419
The NFL will also do anything to save face and minimize public scrutiny and embarrassment.
A public settlement or lost court case would blow over in no time nationally. Creating a new franchise would not.
A public settlement or lost court case would blow over in no time nationally. Creating a new franchise would not.
- 2,430
Why does B have appeals and delays anymore than A if it's a settlement?
- 3,767
^You are correct. I should move that delays, appeals to option C assuming STL wins. I made a few changes.
- 2,056
Having option A and some ability to control the contract terminology would be pretty awesome... because I have a feeling that would be worth more in tax revenue than option B, just from TV revenue/earnings tax for the next 10-15 years... and at 30 years, that could be a lot of tax revenue. Throw a Superbowl or a few title runs in there and it would definitely be worth it...
Now... make the NFL own the stadium, pay property taxes, and then restore the entertainment tax also... huge win.
Now... make the NFL own the stadium, pay property taxes, and then restore the entertainment tax also... huge win.
- 64
A shouldn't even be an option for a multitude of reasons. Assuming the team wouldn't be treated unfairly by the league is a pipe dream. There is absolutely zero trust between ST. Louis and the NFL. After the Rams, St. Louis should want nothing to do with another city's current franchise. You'd certainly want local ownership for an expansion team. Who has that kind of money to step up? The Taylors have already gone above and beyond for this community. Is the Dome even an option at this point? Getting the Dome up to 2020 standards would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Over half a billion to include a retractable roof. Are they not making improvements to the convention center that include portions of the Dome? Who'd pay for a stadium if the Dome wasn't an option? A new practice facility would also have to be built since Kroenke was awarded Rams park. 3 franchises in 35 years....don't see it happening.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2019Let’s say the settlement ends up being huge for St. Louis. (I have no idea what the end game will be, but let’s assume it is very favorable. Would you rather have the following result:
Please choose the option you most prefer and explain. Thanks!
A) St. Louis is given a new team (expansion or rebranded Charger franchise w/ local owners) with ironclad 30-year lease, Dome renovations to get up to 2020 standards, Rams park lease and all expenses paid back from effort to keep Rams ($20M).
B) $200-$350M cash back to the CVC, City, County etc.
C) No settlement. Will take our chances so we can see stanK, Goodell and his cronies take the stand and admit the fix was in & the process was rigged. Under this scenario, nothing is guaranteed, we are at the mercy of the judicial system. What we have to gain could be similar to option B, but we also get to expose the corrupt cartel-like behavior of the NFL. There is also a chance we lose and get nothing. Then we have egg all over our faces. If STL prevails there could be more attorney fees, appeals and delays, before the money gets back to the region’s coffers.
As much as I hate to say it, I would choose option A. Assuming the franchise has a local majority, an ironclad lease and is not treated unfairly by the league.
Paying off the Dome and using a portion of the settlement to improve the convention center is infinitely more profitable to the St. Louis region than any NFL team would be.
Would love C just to watch Kroenke, Demoff, and Goodell squirm up on the stand......but if what some of the talking heads are saying ($500M +) then it's hard to turn that down.
NM
- 2,929
Full trial, with discovery and open testimony.
The Defendants (StanK, Kroenke Sports Enterprises, the NFL, the Rams LLC, and all 31 other franchises & their owners) are facing 4 counts of civil fraud, which is no joke. Damages being sought by the Plaintiffs (STL City, STL County, and the RSA) include the sunk costs of the stadium and all the monies put forward towards retaining the team. More importantly, they also are seeking the direct increase in valuation of the Rams franchise post-relocation (which doubled the night relocation was authorized and more since then). So far, that's greater than $2 Billion --- which is around what we're considering for a 99-year lease of St. Louis Lambert International Airport. And, we still have the damages from StanK's public letter trashing the region as economically unviable, which not just burned his last bridges in the region & the state but sullied our City's reputation and all of us in the process. Punitive damages - which exist to scare off any potential future entity or natural person from committing the same actions - could very well be triple the damages being sought.
Meanwhile, the Defendants are terrified of discovery for culpability. StanK, Demoff, and Fisher have stated post-relocation that their intentions since 2013 had been to relocate. Example: Rams CB Cortland Finnegan stated in 2016 that Fisher told him in 2013/2014 that the team was going to relocate to LA, that the decision had already been made; Finnegan thought the only reason Fisher stayed on as coach was to manage the transition. As well, the NFL's brand is fully tied into their consumers having a personal identification with their chosen franchise, that their brand is based on emotion and self-identity. Should it be demonstrated that consumer fanaticism isn't fully valued by the League, then they risk their brand's core strengths.
When this gets to open court, we'll see StanK, Demoff, Fisher, and Goodell all have to take the stand in a STL City courtroom under oath.
All this time, the case is being litigated on a contingency basis by Bob Blitz (who fought alongside Dave Peacock to keep the Rams in STL) and his firm on a contingency basis, so there are no public costs to the suit as it's being contested. It costs us nothing, so let's cheer it on into open court.
Now, the possibility of a settlement does exist but is extremely unlikely to the point of being pretty much inconceivable. Bernie Miklasz at 101 ESPN has written a great column about what an expected settlement would look like; I doubt the Plaintiffs would settle for much of anything less than he's written. Meanwhile, Randy Karraker, when he broke this story yesterday, tweeted that he thinks any settlement would have to be at least $3.5 Billion.
Going to trial means taking DogtownBnR's Option B and adding a zero onto what could be awarded before punitive damages. Plus, we get to fight back in open court, with discovery. No doubt, let's go for Option C. We may just get the Chargers anyways.
The Defendants (StanK, Kroenke Sports Enterprises, the NFL, the Rams LLC, and all 31 other franchises & their owners) are facing 4 counts of civil fraud, which is no joke. Damages being sought by the Plaintiffs (STL City, STL County, and the RSA) include the sunk costs of the stadium and all the monies put forward towards retaining the team. More importantly, they also are seeking the direct increase in valuation of the Rams franchise post-relocation (which doubled the night relocation was authorized and more since then). So far, that's greater than $2 Billion --- which is around what we're considering for a 99-year lease of St. Louis Lambert International Airport. And, we still have the damages from StanK's public letter trashing the region as economically unviable, which not just burned his last bridges in the region & the state but sullied our City's reputation and all of us in the process. Punitive damages - which exist to scare off any potential future entity or natural person from committing the same actions - could very well be triple the damages being sought.
Meanwhile, the Defendants are terrified of discovery for culpability. StanK, Demoff, and Fisher have stated post-relocation that their intentions since 2013 had been to relocate. Example: Rams CB Cortland Finnegan stated in 2016 that Fisher told him in 2013/2014 that the team was going to relocate to LA, that the decision had already been made; Finnegan thought the only reason Fisher stayed on as coach was to manage the transition. As well, the NFL's brand is fully tied into their consumers having a personal identification with their chosen franchise, that their brand is based on emotion and self-identity. Should it be demonstrated that consumer fanaticism isn't fully valued by the League, then they risk their brand's core strengths.
When this gets to open court, we'll see StanK, Demoff, Fisher, and Goodell all have to take the stand in a STL City courtroom under oath.
All this time, the case is being litigated on a contingency basis by Bob Blitz (who fought alongside Dave Peacock to keep the Rams in STL) and his firm on a contingency basis, so there are no public costs to the suit as it's being contested. It costs us nothing, so let's cheer it on into open court.
Now, the possibility of a settlement does exist but is extremely unlikely to the point of being pretty much inconceivable. Bernie Miklasz at 101 ESPN has written a great column about what an expected settlement would look like; I doubt the Plaintiffs would settle for much of anything less than he's written. Meanwhile, Randy Karraker, when he broke this story yesterday, tweeted that he thinks any settlement would have to be at least $3.5 Billion.
Going to trial means taking DogtownBnR's Option B and adding a zero onto what could be awarded before punitive damages. Plus, we get to fight back in open court, with discovery. No doubt, let's go for Option C. We may just get the Chargers anyways.
- 3,767
Keep in mind, the poll is a complete hypothetical, ‘what if?’
I completely get it, that option A is a pipe dream. However, I just thought I’d throw it in there since it is so often mentioned by people ranting on social media.
Then again, considering how unpredictable and desperate the NFL will likely get, once they are close to trial, anything could be put on the table. Look at that debacle of a relocation vote, the town halls, the Jerry speech that put stanK in LA. These buffoons are unpredictable when put under the gun. Look how Goodell has screwed up many a scandal. I don’t think you can 100% rule out option A with the current NFL “leadership”. Again, agree, very unlikely, but not impossible.
I completely get it, that option A is a pipe dream. However, I just thought I’d throw it in there since it is so often mentioned by people ranting on social media.
Then again, considering how unpredictable and desperate the NFL will likely get, once they are close to trial, anything could be put on the table. Look at that debacle of a relocation vote, the town halls, the Jerry speech that put stanK in LA. These buffoons are unpredictable when put under the gun. Look how Goodell has screwed up many a scandal. I don’t think you can 100% rule out option A with the current NFL “leadership”. Again, agree, very unlikely, but not impossible.
- 64
Ha sorry I was a bit harsh on option A. Personally I don't see it as an option at all but nothing is impossible. I've tried watching the NFL lately and it was downright boring. I guess at this point I also don't care about the NFL so that played into my answer. Would rather try (can't believe I'm saying this) the NBA (another pipe dream).DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2019Keep in mind, the poll is a complete hypothetical, ‘what if?’
I completely get it, that option A is a pipe dream. However, I just thought I’d throw it in there since it is so often mentioned by people ranting on social media.
Then again, considering how unpredictable and desperate the NFL will likely get, once they are close to trial, anything could be put on the table. Look at that debacle of a relocation vote, the town halls, the Jerry speech that put stanK in LA. These buffoons are unpredictable when put under the gun. Look how Goodell has screwed up many a scandal. I don’t think you can 100% rule out option A with the current NFL “leadership”. Again, agree, very unlikely, but not impossible.
Completely agree with Gone Corporate, the only real option is Full Discovery.
The NFL may well dangle another team. If we're adding the league because they negotiated in bad faith, why on earth would we would the city enter into negotiations with that same untrustworthy entity for a new team and/or stadium? As much as I'd enjoy a new team, that would simply be inviting more of the same.
And if they're offering a big settlement, it's because they're afraid of an even bigger judgement. I'm no legal expert, but the case seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.
Too, this doesn't just affect St Louis; we're not the first city the late has screwed over, but a judgement against the league could make it harder for them to do something similar to another team.
I'm 100% on board with using tax dollars to see this through to a judgement, even if that increases the risk of a finding for the NFL.
-RBB
The NFL may well dangle another team. If we're adding the league because they negotiated in bad faith, why on earth would we would the city enter into negotiations with that same untrustworthy entity for a new team and/or stadium? As much as I'd enjoy a new team, that would simply be inviting more of the same.
And if they're offering a big settlement, it's because they're afraid of an even bigger judgement. I'm no legal expert, but the case seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.
Too, this doesn't just affect St Louis; we're not the first city the late has screwed over, but a judgement against the league could make it harder for them to do something similar to another team.
I'm 100% on board with using tax dollars to see this through to a judgement, even if that increases the risk of a finding for the NFL.
-RBB
- 3,767
I agree, the NFL is boring until you get to the playoffs. Then it can get interesting.
I root for the downfall of the NFL due to CTE and head injuries. The NFL will never be what it once was and is going to be forced to further change. I’m not sure the equipment can absorb enough of the impact to make a huge difference in the number of players with CTE. Maybe I’m wrong, but a see a very different NFL in 25-30 years.
I think I’ve now been convinced to go with Option C because I think we have a good case & I want to see the cartel take the stand. Bernie’s article further advanced that thought process.
I root for the downfall of the NFL due to CTE and head injuries. The NFL will never be what it once was and is going to be forced to further change. I’m not sure the equipment can absorb enough of the impact to make a huge difference in the number of players with CTE. Maybe I’m wrong, but a see a very different NFL in 25-30 years.
I think I’ve now been convinced to go with Option C because I think we have a good case & I want to see the cartel take the stand. Bernie’s article further advanced that thought process.
- 2,056
If options B and C are in the Billions of dollars... then obviously I'd change my answer.
THANK YOU!John Coctostan wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2019A shouldn't even be an option for a multitude of reasons. Assuming the team wouldn't be treated unfairly by the league is a pipe dream. There is absolutely zero trust between ST. Louis and the NFL. After the Rams, St. Louis should want nothing to do with another city's current franchise. You'd certainly want local ownership for an expansion team. Who has that kind of money to step up? The Taylors have already gone above and beyond for this community. Is the Dome even an option at this point? Getting the Dome up to 2020 standards would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Over half a billion to include a retractable roof. Are they not making improvements to the convention center that include portions of the Dome? Who'd pay for a stadium if the Dome wasn't an option? A new practice facility would also have to be built since Kroenke was awarded Rams park. 3 franchises in 35 years....don't see it happening.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2019Let’s say the settlement ends up being huge for St. Louis. (I have no idea what the end game will be, but let’s assume it is very favorable. Would you rather have the following result:
Please choose the option you most prefer and explain. Thanks!
A) St. Louis is given a new team (expansion or rebranded Charger franchise w/ local owners) with ironclad 30-year lease, Dome renovations to get up to 2020 standards, Rams park lease and all expenses paid back from effort to keep Rams ($20M).
B) $200-$350M cash back to the CVC, City, County etc.
C) No settlement. Will take our chances so we can see stanK, Goodell and his cronies take the stand and admit the fix was in & the process was rigged. Under this scenario, nothing is guaranteed, we are at the mercy of the judicial system. What we have to gain could be similar to option B, but we also get to expose the corrupt cartel-like behavior of the NFL. There is also a chance we lose and get nothing. Then we have egg all over our faces. If STL prevails there could be more attorney fees, appeals and delays, before the money gets back to the region’s coffers.
As much as I hate to say it, I would choose option A. Assuming the franchise has a local majority, an ironclad lease and is not treated unfairly by the league.
Paying off the Dome and using a portion of the settlement to improve the convention center is infinitely more profitable to the St. Louis region than any NFL team would be.
Would love C just to watch Kroenke, Demoff, and Goodell squirm up on the stand......but if what some of the talking heads are saying ($500M +) then it's hard to turn that down.
I'm most likely in the minority here (allow me to zip up my flame suit first) but I hope St. Louis never sees another NFL team again. We went down this road twice, and got burned twice. Enough is enough.
As you pointed out, the idea that we'd get any favorable treatment or a favorable lease from the NFL or an owner is laughable. These teams exists to ***** cities over and make their cartel of owners as much money as possible. The sport itself is just a byproduct these days.
I'm all in for full discovery in terms of selecting one of the options above, though I'm not convinced it gets there.
Great post GC and thanks for the link.gone corporate wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2019
Now, the possibility of a settlement does exist but is extremely unlikely to the point of being pretty much inconceivable. Bernie Miklasz at 101 ESPN has written a great column about what an expected settlement would look like; I doubt the Plaintiffs would settle for much of anything less than he's written. Meanwhile, Randy Karraker, when he broke this story yesterday, tweeted that he thinks any settlement would have to be at least $3.5 Billion.
St Louis Chargers is a realistic option in my opinion. I don't think the NFL would give into all the goodies but maybe part of the settlement would be NFL dome upgrades, the $250 million version, but current debt on dome itself remains as is and paid off with current revenues. NFL would have a legit argument not too pay off the dome for putting a NFL team back in St Louis but does make sense to appease the Chargers to upgrade the dome. I don't see any political appetite from State on down to the city for building a new stadium. Maybe all wrong on that perception.
It is interesting to contemplate that St Louis went from a 3 pro team sports town to a 2 pro team and now a shot at 4 pro team sports team with MLS franchise coming together and NFL having to figure out a way to mitigate the risk of a full on trial, punitive damages. The icing on the cake is Stan K losing his tenant to help pay for all the bills they are racking up on their new LA stadium. That is a lot of money anyway you look at it. But Stan K would probably accept losing his extra tenant on the fact that he would have southern California market & its +10-12 million people completely to himself.
NFL is not going to award a new franchise in St. Louis. I honestly think its only a matter of time before the next two franchises will be London, and then Mexico City. Huge cities, huge media markets and significant fan bases & American connections way beyond what St. Louis has to offer a new franchise. So the St. Louis Chargers make a lot of sense to me if I was NFL
I still love football, and watch two or three games every week. Sure, some of the brutal hits have been removed from the game, but it's still plenty exciting to watch. The pure athleticism displayed is just incredible.
As far as the three options go, I'd love to see the NFL award us an all-new team, with some kind of community-ownership (similar to Green Bay), so we don't have to got though this every 30 years.
As far as the three options go, I'd love to see the NFL award us an all-new team, with some kind of community-ownership (similar to Green Bay), so we don't have to got though this every 30 years.
- 2,419
I think there's a 0.01% chance of another NFL franchise coming to St. Louis, unless St. Louis gets as hot as Nashville and is awarded a franchise on its own merits 20+ years from now.
What I find amazing about all of this, now going on 2 years since the suit was filed, is that there is no mention - I mean zero - out of LA media. How many times has Stan lost appeals to get this thrown out or moved? Nothing in the Times https://www.latimes.com/sports and nothing form Sam Farmer https://twitter.com/LATimesfarmer - who followed this like a hawk in the 2015 season while the team was still here.
I am pretty sure if the show was on the other foot the Post would have a reporter at least following the suit, either LA does not care about the Rams, or the LA media can not stomach the truth about relocation.
I think they will settle - I can not see a team ever playing here again, guess now we will find out what it is worth to keep Roger and Stan out of court.
I have no idea what the value of that is.
I am pretty sure if the show was on the other foot the Post would have a reporter at least following the suit, either LA does not care about the Rams, or the LA media can not stomach the truth about relocation.
I think they will settle - I can not see a team ever playing here again, guess now we will find out what it is worth to keep Roger and Stan out of court.
I have no idea what the value of that is.