Unless Jerry already sold his territorial rights in exchange for Rams relocation votes...jshank83 wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021They need to pick a better city than Austin to threaten with unless they are going to pay off Jerry somehow.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021Report: Austin is a possible destination, real or threatened, for Bills
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-bills/
The balls on these teams.
- 2,929
Looking at Casenet now... If I'm reading this correctly, a number of filings were submitted by Plaintiffs on Wednesday, 7/28.moorlander wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2021Team StL had 10 days to submit more evidence. (Looks at calendar)
"Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Discovery Concerning Defendants' Assets, Pursuant to §510.263.8 RSMo."
The Court also received multiple interrogatory filings by Plaintiffs upon multiple Co-Defendants. Just from looking at this page, I'm not certain whether or not the teams/Co-Defendants listed therein from these interrogatories are concurrently being submitted by the Plaintiffs for expansion of potential punitive damages awardees. Again, IANAL. Any insight from an actual attorney would be appreciated here.
Best source for updates continues to be Randy Karraker's twitter: https://twitter.com/RandyKarraker
Yep, Raiders beat them to the punch for Vegas. I wonder if an international city say London, Mexico City or even Toronto would give them more leverage. However, I think their is hand full of states with big enough metro areas big enough to pull off three teams. Texas is probably one of them and if you find a way to Jerry's good graces as Jshank83 notedjshank83 wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021They need to pick a better city than Austin to threaten with unless they are going to pay off Jerry somehow.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021Report: Austin is a possible destination, real or threatened, for Bills
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-bills/
The balls on these teams.
Not NFL, but getting the Oakland A's stadium drama in my neck of the woods. Oakland could have no pro sports in a year or two after being home to three teams.
Mike Florio produces nothing but clickbait.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021Report: Austin is a possible destination, real or threatened, for Bills
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-bills/
The balls on these teams.
Maybe. Only two states have at least four separate MSAs in the Top 30, and Texas is one of them - DFW (#4), Greater Houston (#5), Greater San Antonio (#24), and Greater Austin (#29).dredger wrote: ↑Aug 02, 2021Yep, Raiders beat them to the punch for Vegas. I wonder if an international city say London, Mexico City or even Toronto would give them more leverage. However, I think their is hand full of states with big enough metro areas big enough to pull off three teams. Texas is probably one of them and if you find a way to Jerry's good graces as Jshank83 notedjshank83 wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021They need to pick a better city than Austin to threaten with unless they are going to pay off Jerry somehow.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021Report: Austin is a possible destination, real or threatened, for Bills
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-bills/
The balls on these teams.
- 991
I think Jerry Jones influence is probably lessened at the moment after the Rams fiasco with him being a major supporter of that relocation. If I were any other owner I’d tell him to get in line with what the majority of other owners support.
Toronto makes the most sense and would be the least heartbreaking for fans since it's only two hours away. Of course it's probably the least likely destination to motivate local government officials into funding a new stadium, so they'll keep threatening to move to Texas. Austin seems like a dumb destination to me. With UT there, The Austin Bills(?) would perpetually be the second most popular football team in town. Man do I hate the NFL.dredger wrote: ↑Aug 02, 2021Yep, Raiders beat them to the punch for Vegas. I wonder if an international city say London, Mexico City or even Toronto would give them more leverage. However, I think their is hand full of states with big enough metro areas big enough to pull off three teams. Texas is probably one of them and if you find a way to Jerry's good graces as Jshank83 notedjshank83 wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021They need to pick a better city than Austin to threaten with unless they are going to pay off Jerry somehow.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2021Report: Austin is a possible destination, real or threatened, for Bills
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-bills/
The balls on these teams.
Not NFL, but getting the Oakland A's stadium drama in my neck of the woods. Oakland could have no pro sports in a year or two after being home to three teams.
I’d think the NFL owners would be telling the Bills to ‘cool it’ until after the St. Louis dust settles. Rattling the ‘relocation saber’ is probably not a good look for the NFL right now. But, go ahead, rattle away…
GoneCorporate… chances they get it?
If it’s a jury verdict, I’d say the chances of getting $3 billion are slim to none. It’ll get reduced on appeal, which will drag on for years.
I’m still hoping for a settlement here…
Not sure about the change of venue…they haven’t had much luck moving things out of STL thus far but if it stays in Missouri they might. Then we’ll probably end up with a bunch of anti-STL jurors who’ll screw us over just because.
I’m still hoping for a settlement here…
Not sure about the change of venue…they haven’t had much luck moving things out of STL thus far but if it stays in Missouri they might. Then we’ll probably end up with a bunch of anti-STL jurors who’ll screw us over just because.
- 2,929
IANAL. That said, it sure would be fun to argue to the court that small towns are inherently biased because all they have are Walmarts! All they need to say is that these small town potential jurors would just be scared that Walmart will have to raise prices to pay off the lawsuit!
I bet it'll stay in STL Circuit Courts.
Holy crap... $3.35BB increase in damages... That just adds to what can be compounded in punitive damages!!!!!
Edit: I just talked to a coworker who is a non-practicing attorney and asked her what's possible with punitive damages. I told her that my thoughts were, if we're lucky, punitive damages of 3x damages sought. With this new thing, I'm taking that multiplier down some, because I'd say STL's fileable damages are probably right around $5BB with that new $3.35BB figure. Then, my coworker told me that it reasonably go up to 4x damages being awarded.
This was also tempered down by stating how all of this would go into appeal right away, likely be whittled down, and it'd be a good while before anything's collected and the checks cleared. So, yeah, I'm trying to be calm and reasonable here while also recognizing that an eleven-figure award is actually quite possible now.
Edit: Blah. Urbanitas' follow-up post caught me mixing up zeroes while counting the commas.
Fourteen-figure?gone corporate wrote: ↑Aug 05, 2021Can't say. IANAL.
Same time, it sure would be fun to argue to the court that small towns are inherently biased because all they have are Walmarts!
Holy crap... $3.35BB increase in damages... That just adds to what can be compounded in punitive damages!!!!!
Edit: I just talked to a coworker who is a non-practicing attorney and asked her what's possible with punitive damages. I told her that my thoughts were, if we're lucky, punitive damages of 3x damages sought. With this new thing, I'm taking that multiplier down some, because I'd say STL's fileable damages are probably right around $5BB with that new $3.35BB figure. Then, my coworker told me that it reasonably go up to 4x damages being awarded.
This was also tempered down by stating how all of this would go into appeal right away, and that it'd be a good while before anything could be collected and the checks cleared. So, yeah, I'm trying to be calm and reasonable here while also recognizing that a fourteen-figure award is actually quite possible now.
That'd be at least half of the US GDP.
- 6,123
^^GC, I love you man. That's . . . epic. This is a better drama than any Superbowl in the history of ever. Maybe better than any sporting event at all. This could almost make it worth it to let Stan the Kroenkroach have his way. You keep the sheepies and give us twenty extra-extra grande and we'll be solid.
- 2,632
Perhaps there can be an addendum where Stan Kreonke gets spanked by all of the former season ticket holders in Kiener Plaza. I would buy tickets to watch that.
- 2,929
^Solid. Personally, I'd rather see him get locked in a stockade at Kiener Plaza and get a pineapple shoved up his ass. We'd probably get as big a turnout as that of a Champions Parade in Downtown.
- 6,123
^ and ^^ I like the way you think. Little StanKy could definitely do with the pineapple treatment and a good solid spanking.
If somehow a punitive damages award comes back in an amount exceeding $10 billion, it will be 2040 before we see a dime because that's how long the whole thing would be tied up in appeals. There have been fewer than ten civil judgments of any kind in history in amounts that exceeded $10B. We're talking about things like the late-1990s tobacco settlements and the 2010 BP oil spill settlement. A city getting screwed out of of an NFL team, even under the extremely shady circumstances in which this happened, isn't remotely in the same ballpark as those things in terms of the amount of harm done. Contrary to what Hollywood legal dramas might imply, 11 figure jury awards that actually get paid are almost nonexistent. There was a $150B award given by a jury in Texas in 2011 to the family of a man who died after having been severely burned 12 years earlier as a child, but the judgment was levied against an individual who was already in prison for an unrelated sexual assault - meaning the family would never see a penny of it, and they knew that when the award was given.gone corporate wrote: ↑Aug 05, 2021Holy crap... $3.35BB increase in damages... That just adds to what can be compounded in punitive damages!!!!!
Edit: I just talked to a coworker who is a non-practicing attorney and asked her what's possible with punitive damages. I told her that my thoughts were, if we're lucky, punitive damages of 3x damages sought. With this new thing, I'm taking that multiplier down some, because I'd say STL's fileable damages are probably right around $5BB with that new $3.35BB figure. Then, my coworker told me that it reasonably go up to 4x damages being awarded.
This was also tempered down by stating how all of this would go into appeal right away, likely be whittled down, and it'd be a good while before anything's collected and the checks cleared. So, yeah, I'm trying to be calm and reasonable here while also recognizing that an eleven-figure award is actually quite possible now.
No, we won't ultimately get an 11 figure final settlement. Not a chance in hell. Even if that's what gets awarded (it won't be), that's not what is going to be paid, ever. It's not even certain that we'll get a ten figure settlement out of this yet. If we walk away with a $500M settlement, that would be a substantial victory. And it might even actually get paid.
To put it another way - you're more likely to get your wish of seeing Uncle Rico Kroenke put in a stockade in Kiener Plaza and having a pineapple literally jammed into his anus than you are of seeing St. Louis actually being awarded a $10 billion civil judgment because of the shady way the Rams left St. Louis. I wouldn't hold my breath on either.
Yep. "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens sums up the court process pretty nicely (even though it was written 150 years ago).
- 3,431
This is a structural problem in the US -- especially when the rich and powerful are involved. Justice delayed is justice denied.
We need to add something like shot clocks to the Constitution via a new amendment. Too much of government rewards loophole finders. Senator McConnell congratulates himself for finding the loophole that there is no shot clock on holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Trump uses the courts to run out the clock on folks who can't afford to pay lawyers for years like he can. The founders knew we could destroy the Constitution if we stopped respecting it and stopped acting in good faith. That is what is happening. The end justifies any means.
So how would the wording of a new "shot clock" amendment read? (I'd like to hears suggestions. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on this forum.). Tell me why the wording below isn't fair to the American public as well as the court participants.
"For Presidential nominees, any nominee not approved or disapproved by the Senate within one month of nomination shall be automatically approved."
"In criminal cases, any person charged shall be given a judgement within two month of the charges. After two months without a judgement, the judge shall render a final verdict based on evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
"In civil cases, a judgement shall we rendered within two month of the filing. After two months, the judge shall render a final verdict based on the evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
We need to add something like shot clocks to the Constitution via a new amendment. Too much of government rewards loophole finders. Senator McConnell congratulates himself for finding the loophole that there is no shot clock on holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Trump uses the courts to run out the clock on folks who can't afford to pay lawyers for years like he can. The founders knew we could destroy the Constitution if we stopped respecting it and stopped acting in good faith. That is what is happening. The end justifies any means.
So how would the wording of a new "shot clock" amendment read? (I'd like to hears suggestions. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on this forum.). Tell me why the wording below isn't fair to the American public as well as the court participants.
"For Presidential nominees, any nominee not approved or disapproved by the Senate within one month of nomination shall be automatically approved."
"In criminal cases, any person charged shall be given a judgement within two month of the charges. After two months without a judgement, the judge shall render a final verdict based on evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
"In civil cases, a judgement shall we rendered within two month of the filing. After two months, the judge shall render a final verdict based on the evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
To be clear, I think the city has a great case here, and there's reason to be hopeful that Kroenke will actually have to pay us a substantial sum of money for what went down with the Rams departure, likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But talking about 11 figure sums of money getting awarded is getting way, way, way ahead of ourselves, and there's no reason to think that such a judgment would actually be awarded (much less, ever paid), given how exceptionally rare judgments of that size are awarded for literally anything, including things that have caused for more actual harm to people than a city getting shafted in an NFL relocation collusion scheme.framer wrote: ↑Aug 07, 2021Yep. "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens sums up the court process pretty nicely (even though it was written 150 years ago).
- 1,868
Obama could've appointed a judge during recess, or cited that the Senate had abdicated its opportunity to consult and appointed Garland without hearings. Just like after the recession when he could've printed currency for necessary stimulus, but preferred to play with Republicans. The problem isn't just that the system is biased toward delay, it's that both sides are on the side of the wealthy.gary kreie wrote: ↑Aug 07, 2021This is a structural problem in the US -- especially when the rich and powerful are involved. Justice delayed is justice denied.
We need to add something like shot clocks to the Constitution via a new amendment. Too much of government rewards loophole finders. Senator McConnell congratulates himself for finding the loophole that there is no shot clock on holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Trump uses the courts to run out the clock on folks who can't afford to pay lawyers for years like he can. The founders knew we could destroy the Constitution if we stopped respecting it and stopped acting in good faith. That is what is happening. The end justifies any means.
So how would the wording of a new "shot clock" amendment read? (I'd like to hears suggestions. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on this forum.). Tell me why the wording below isn't fair to the American public as well as the court participants.
"For Presidential nominees, any nominee not approved or disapproved by the Senate within one month of nomination shall be automatically approved."
"In criminal cases, any person charged shall be given a judgement within two month of the charges. After two months without a judgement, the judge shall render a final verdict based on evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
"In civil cases, a judgement shall we rendered within two month of the filing. After two months, the judge shall render a final verdict based on the evidence presented to date. Any delay beyond two months shall only be allowed if prosecution and defense both agree to the delay. All appeals must be rendered within one additional month, or the original verdict stands."
As such, I don't think a constitutional amendment would matter. If anyone in power were willing to do something that radical, they could've stymied most abuses using less radical means already. And if the people in power want to preserve the power of the rich and influential (i.e. themselves) then an amendment won't stop them anyway.
- 1,291
^ Yep. Dunno why Americans insist on thinking that anything will change will politicians in charge. If anything does change, you can bet that the only ones benefitting are the politicians and their wealthy buddies. The People still hold the power, though - a nice long general strike or two would help.
- 2,929
STLtoday: BenFred: Are you ready, Jerry? Show St. Louis the money
TL/DR: Stank Kroenke & the NFL franchise owners whose financial statements are to be given to the court (by judge's orders) are stalling. These owners, FYI, are the ones who comprised the NFL Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. These are among the most highly influential franchise owners; their actions to deviate from the League's rules and bylaws regarding franchise relocations perhaps led the rest of the League's franchise owners to allow, by secret ballot, the Rams' relocation to Inglewood.
Among these franchise owners is Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who for years urged the NFL to relocate a team to LA. His side company, Legends Hospitality, manages stadiums and hospitality events, including concessions and merchandising. Legends was immediately retained by Kroenke to operate his Inglewood stadium once the Rams were given the green light by the League to relocate. In 2019, Legends got SoFi the naming rights for the Inglewood stadium: 20 years x $30MM.
At the beginning of 2021, Legends recognized a new investor, Sixth Street Partners, which bought a majority stake in the company (51%) for $1.35BB. Subsequently, the 2 other largest owners in the company (20% apiece) are the Yankees and the Cowboys, which also are considered the two most valuable sports franchises in the world. The Cowboys have a current private valuation of $6.4BB...
Side notes: There really is so much money at play, along with a very real web of interdependent business relationships, between these franchise owners and sports companies. It makes me all the more amazed at how much they've put at risk with this whole mess. It's not the potential damages they could owe STL that's really at stake, but their antitrust status.
The League wrote its bylaws on relocation specifically because of the antitrust risks that became wholly evident when Al Davis relocated the Raiders to Los Angeles from Oakland back in the '80s. It very much was these relocation bylaws and regulations that allowed the NFL to continue its growth as a business the way it has, into the most dominant sports league in the world (IDGAF about Premier League arguments here). If they'd abide by their own rules, then they'd remain compliant with antitrust regulations. Now, since they've broken their rules, and these violations were made evident in a courtroom, then they're at a very real risk of the Justice Department coming back to talk again and questioning everything they're doing as a business.
The only thing I can think of, seriously, is that they were just overly confident that the lawsuit would have remained wholly in arbitration. If this was still in arbitration, then confidential business disclosures - such as team & owner finances AND ANY POTENTIAL ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS - would never enter a public record like what will take place if this lawsuit ends up in civil court. However, before the Justice Department comes knocking at their doors, the courts must first enter into the records these documents.
The League will try to move heaven and hell to settle this. Same time, I don't know if the Plaintiffs give a damn.
TL/DR: Stank Kroenke & the NFL franchise owners whose financial statements are to be given to the court (by judge's orders) are stalling. These owners, FYI, are the ones who comprised the NFL Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. These are among the most highly influential franchise owners; their actions to deviate from the League's rules and bylaws regarding franchise relocations perhaps led the rest of the League's franchise owners to allow, by secret ballot, the Rams' relocation to Inglewood.
Among these franchise owners is Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who for years urged the NFL to relocate a team to LA. His side company, Legends Hospitality, manages stadiums and hospitality events, including concessions and merchandising. Legends was immediately retained by Kroenke to operate his Inglewood stadium once the Rams were given the green light by the League to relocate. In 2019, Legends got SoFi the naming rights for the Inglewood stadium: 20 years x $30MM.
At the beginning of 2021, Legends recognized a new investor, Sixth Street Partners, which bought a majority stake in the company (51%) for $1.35BB. Subsequently, the 2 other largest owners in the company (20% apiece) are the Yankees and the Cowboys, which also are considered the two most valuable sports franchises in the world. The Cowboys have a current private valuation of $6.4BB...
Side notes: There really is so much money at play, along with a very real web of interdependent business relationships, between these franchise owners and sports companies. It makes me all the more amazed at how much they've put at risk with this whole mess. It's not the potential damages they could owe STL that's really at stake, but their antitrust status.
The League wrote its bylaws on relocation specifically because of the antitrust risks that became wholly evident when Al Davis relocated the Raiders to Los Angeles from Oakland back in the '80s. It very much was these relocation bylaws and regulations that allowed the NFL to continue its growth as a business the way it has, into the most dominant sports league in the world (IDGAF about Premier League arguments here). If they'd abide by their own rules, then they'd remain compliant with antitrust regulations. Now, since they've broken their rules, and these violations were made evident in a courtroom, then they're at a very real risk of the Justice Department coming back to talk again and questioning everything they're doing as a business.
The only thing I can think of, seriously, is that they were just overly confident that the lawsuit would have remained wholly in arbitration. If this was still in arbitration, then confidential business disclosures - such as team & owner finances AND ANY POTENTIAL ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS - would never enter a public record like what will take place if this lawsuit ends up in civil court. However, before the Justice Department comes knocking at their doors, the courts must first enter into the records these documents.
The League will try to move heaven and hell to settle this. Same time, I don't know if the Plaintiffs give a damn.
Non-STL news is paying attention to this now...
Bloomberg: Billionaire Who Relocated NFL’s Rams Wants Trial Moved Out of St. Louis
Much of what's discussed is well known in this thread already. Here's some things of note:
Bloomberg: Billionaire Who Relocated NFL’s Rams Wants Trial Moved Out of St. Louis
Much of what's discussed is well known in this thread already. Here's some things of note:
AndMichael A. Wolff, a retired chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and a former dean of the St. Louis University Law School, said the change-of-venue request is a “desperation move” that’s unlikely to succeed, especially so late in the litigation. If Kroenke manages to get the case moved, it would go to another Missouri circuit court, Wolff said.
Good times.Judge Christopher McGraugh in St. Louis has scheduled an Aug. 25 hearing on a request by Kroenke and the NFL to decide the case in their favor based on the evidence presented so far -- probably their last chance to escape a jury trial. (emphasis mine - GC)