urbanSTL

The parties could still settle post-verdict and avoid protracted litigation over the damage award. Such a settlement would also be in the City's interest because they are seeking a large punitive award, 50% of which will flow directly into the Missouri Tort Victim's Compensation Fund. So if you're the City, litigate and get the massive judgment, and then approach the Defendant's about settling from a superior position

No. New. Team.

"Hey guys, we know you dealt with us duplicitously for years and it has been established that it was a top-down league-wide conspiracy and it was soooo bad that we've spent years suing you for some yet-to-be-determined 10-figure punitive dollar amount and besides that you spat on us and rubbed our nose in the dirt on the way out and this isn't even out of character based on how you've dealt with public institutions over the years and you're potentially breaking the terms of your federal anti-trust exemption so it's clear we hate each other and you can't be trusted even in the slightest....  BUT ME WANT FOOTBALL."

I get it - I seriously enjoyed NFL football too. Even bad football was entertaining football.  But entering into some new contractual agreement with the organization you're currently suing for not honoring their contracts is simply folly and can only end up back in the same situation down the road.

Maybe Jones & Kroenke and other owners like him die off, and maybe if NFL seniors are replaced by a different set of less blatantly greedy leadership, and maybe the government uses the anti-trust exemption to whip them into shape and ensure they build a stronger relocation process. If all that's true then at that point maybe it's worth dealing with them again.  But the rot starts at the head and until it's cut out it's just dumb to jump right back in with them.

The XFL is dead. Long live the XFL. 

-RBB

^^^Yeah I completely agree. People hoping for a new NFL team, wether expansion or relocation, are experiencing some kind of madness. No, seriously, you must be partially insane. Firstly because that is never going to happen, and thank god it seems like the attorneys pushing this effort forward don't share your insanity. And secondly because....holy sh*t have some self respect.

If you really like football that much, personally I've always found Missouri to be a more exciting program to follow than the Rams were. And for a brief shining moment, the Battlehawks were here, and God willing, they will be back.

But Jesus, please stop holding out any and all ideas of a new NFL team here. It's incredibly pathetic to even think about. Oh and even if you still, *still* can't stop following the NFL (which is wierd and you should consider addiction therapy), at least follow the Packers, who have an ownership model that would prevent the StL scenario from playing out.

That's pretty much the only scenario I would accept a new team here: 

• Owned by the city and its residents
• Stadium completely funded by NFL (either new or huge upgrade to Dome)
• Super Bowl and NFL draft need to come here every ten years
• Roger Goodell must leave in disgrace

Basically the NFL would need to lose its pants here. Overall I think that would be a huge win when you think that the original goal was to basically bend over for the NFL and Kroenke and throw tax dollars to keep the Rams. 

Disclaimer - I still follow the NFL and should consider addiction therapy 

Eh, it'd still be fun to have a football team (as long as it is a minor part of the overall settlement)

Development is development...and it's an attractive entertainment option for the city.

It doesn't really matter to me (the settlement money is more important), but if a NFL team helps St. Louis, then I'm game.

*mls has no team owners, the league owns all the teams and you buy a share into that entity and get a title of “team owner”*

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2021

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 15, 2021

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Sep 15, 2021

that's estimated average earnings taxes of $18.2MM per season.

That'd be about 10% of annual earnings taxes. I don't think your math checks out.

StlMag - Earnings Tax, Income Tax, and the Rams

Since the team’s practice facility and business operation are based in St. Louis County, players only pay the city earnings tax for the 10 days that they actually play games in the city (two preseason games and eight regular-season games). Visiting teams, which come in for two days at a time instead of just one, actually pay the city for more days worth of wages each year than the Rams.

Let’s say that a random Rams player makes $2 million a year. The 10 days that player works in the city would account for about $77,000 of his salary. (Vollmer says the city calculates this based on a standard 2,080-hour work year.) The city would collect 1 percent of that, a measly $770.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earn ... -the-rams/

I had read elsewhere that the payroll tax measured salaries on a per-game payout, meaning the tax applied to game days played, i.e. that the players effectively "worked" only 8 days per year under the tax. 

$2,150,000 is the average player salary in 2015
x 53 players on a roster
x 2 to include both home and visitor 
x 8 games per year 
x 0.01 for the earnings tax 
= $18,232,000

If we're including preseason, then switch the 8 to 10 and get $22,790,000. 

That all stated, I credit your source as reputable. 

Either way, it's tax money the City won't want to give up, and for which in part we are suing. 

You need to divide the top salary number by 20 first(nfl season weeks including preseason) then do the rest of the math

$2,150,000 is the average player salary in 2015
/ 20 weeks
x 53 players on a roster
x 2 to include both home and visitor 
x 8 games per year 
x 0.01 for the earnings tax 
= $ 911,600

^Multiply by 10 games not 8

By multiplying by 8 you're saying they're making $860,000 per game. You're also assuming their only work days are game days.

I know people almost expect an appeal, but they talk as if an appeal wouldn't cost Kroenke another truck load of money in legal fees. I think there comes a point where you just cut your losses.

I'd love a team, but the bridges are burnt I feel. Only smidgen of getting a team I feel may be some bullsh*t "first refusal" on future expansion to try and slink off the hook. I kind of agree with Florio they'll eventually try 34 teams after they get 18 teams because they are the greedy NFL, but as he also said thats at least a decade away and 32 is such a nice round number I'm not sure we'll ever get that either, not without opposition. They don't even have 32 settled teams given the state of the Chargers. Same way baseball won't expand currently whilst it has basket case teams in Tampa and Oakland.

Chargers aren't coming either despite all the problems it would remove. Unless they land a Steve Ballmer, they'll go to San Antonio or Austin in 5-10 years with a fully funded stadium when LA fails, whether Jerry likes it or not which Stan will not stand in the way of at all and he could probably bring in UCLA as a secondary tenant. The ironic thing is, if they came here they'd probably remove the last realistic hope of another team in Texas which he has has always intensely blocked. 

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2021

By multiplying by 8 you're saying they're making $860,000 per game. You're also assuming their only work days are game days.

I think db had it almost correct:

$2,150,000 is the average player salary in 2015
/ 20 18 weeks
x 53 players on a roster
x 2 to include both home and visitor 
x 8 8.5 games per year 
x 0.01 for the earnings tax 
= $ 911,600 1,076,194

Per this SI.com article ( https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report ... the-basics ) : 

Players are given their base salary pay in 17 installments (for the 16-game schedule), one per week during the season.

Since that article, the regular season has been modified to an 18 week schedule, with each team playing 17 games.  

Obviously the 8.5 games per year doesn't hold up in my math, as a team will either have 8 or 9 home games per year.

Also this season the salary cap is $182.5m, but by 2024 it will increase to $256m.  That's potentially a 40% increase if teams are spending up to the salary cap. ($~430k based on the rough, inaccurate calculation from above)

I would normally guess St Louis could get a team when the current leads die of old age in 10 years. But the NFL teams are North Korea and the sons of current owner take over when dear leader dies. And those spawns will still think of St Louis as trash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not exactly related but if St. Louis ever does get an NFL team again, the new stadium needs to have a dome/retractable roof. Not that the Rams would’ve ever agreed to the riverfront stadium anyways, but an open air stadium was not a great idea. A roof allows for year round events, the possibility of Super Bowls, Final Fours, College Football Playoffs, etc. And not to mention the crowd noise is much louder in domes, which was one of the few advantages that the Dome did give the Rams when they were here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2021

By multiplying by 8 you're saying they're making $860,000 per game. You're also assuming their only work days are game days.

I’m pretty sure they only get paid for game days. They practice for “free”

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Sep 17, 2021

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2021

By multiplying by 8 you're saying they're making $860,000 per game. You're also assuming their only work days are game days.

I’m pretty sure they only get paid for game days. They practice for “free”

Other way of looking at it is they just get paid weekly for the week of work during the season.    Multiple of 8 or 10 weeks is just 8 or 10 paychecks.  

And again- you cannot multiply the average salary by number of players then games etc.  you have to divide  the top line average salary number by number of paychecks before you do the rest of the math

We’ve also had reporting on this. It’s very minimal lose for the city when it comes to E tax
https://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earn ... -the-rams/

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Sep 17, 2021

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2021

By multiplying by 8 you're saying they're making $860,000 per game. You're also assuming their only work days are game days.

I’m pretty sure they only get paid for game days. They practice for “free”

Not according to the Stl Mag article, at least in regards to how they're taxed.

Here's a Twitter thread from The Atlantic's legal analyst:



Short version - He thinks the judgement could reach $3B+ in actual damages before even considering punitive damages, based on MO law calling for 'disgorgement or restitution' of moneys gained through unjust enrichment.  This would consider:

1. the increased valuation of the Rams franchise, 
2. the relocation fee,
3. lost revenues

Re: punitive damages, he thinks this could be a multi-billion dollar number in addition to actual damages.  He notes that MO passed a law in 2020 setting a higher bar for punitive damages to be awarded, but since the city's lawsuit was filed in 2017 it falls under the older, more lenient law.  Or as he says here:



As for the amount, he doesn't give a specific number but instead says 'single-digit multipliers' of the actual damages are typical and consistent. So, take the up-to-$3B actual, multiply it by some number (I've seen anywhere from 2x to 5X thrown around as precedent on the Twitters) and you have the actual punitive award.  IA *definitely* NAL but If I read this correctly then this scenario a $6-7B punative judgement isn't out of the question at all, and so an overall 11-digit number is within the realm of possibility.

-RBB

Podcast: Conduct Detrimental
The St. Louis Rams Relocation

https://open.spotify.com/episode/51krjg ... l_branch=1

They suggest this is far from won and that the NFL would likely stand a good chance in appealing after jury determination.