urbanSTL

Frank Cusamano interview of Dan Wallach

^^ thanks for the breakout

Understand that bonds were taken out to build the stadium and additional money for upgrades & maintenance but also a lot of those monies have been paid w interest of course.   Best info I could find so far is this break out form 2019 was that $44.7 million was stilled owed on bond debts plus maintenance.  Not sure if that was the state share only.  In other words, what debt is still owed on the dome itself?  how much left on the bond(s) principal?  

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... merly-nam/

So in theory a decent settlement would still result in cash in pocket   In other words, I might have taken out a loan to purchase my house for $250k, spent 25 of the 30 years paying the mortgage to a point where I might owe, say 75K to the bank on principal .   The reality is if i get a settle w home builder for bad construction say for the value of the purchase, the $250k.   Yes, I spent a lot of money servicing that debt for 25 years but after the $250k settlement I would give 75k to bank & take title/pay off the debt & put 175k the rest in bank account.  Is it a good deal, should I settle for the purchase + interest? probably.  agreeable settlement up for debate but at end of day a decent settlement would still result as cash in hand for parties.  

The problem with banking on a jury is they might not agree with a large punitive damage even if they find in your favor.  In addition, real risk of jury agreeing with NFL that every year that Rams were in Dome was a benefit and legitimate argue by defense and so therefore damages might be limited to what was left, after the move.  Say the $144 million in debt from when they left (what I could find from 2016) + maintenance to 2024 from then you hope the jury is sympathetic about the 35% lawyers cut.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... merly-nam/

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Oct 27, 2021

But Jones is the only owner that's staying aligned with Kroenke.  They alone can't strong-arm any other owners.  Any attempt would probably result in a 30-2 vote amongst the owners against Kroenke and Jones.

Well the article definitely makes it seem like it's just Jones, but I'm not sure I believe it's just Jones.  Both Kroenke and Jones led the way for the LA transition, so they do seem to hold a lot of sway with the owners.

So, what's in it for Jones to align with Kroenke?  If Kroenke wins his lawsuit against the NFL, then Jones will be on the hook for legal fees for the St. Louis lawsuit. Why isn't Jones outraged?

Something seems to be going on behind the scenes, and my opinion is that Jones isn't the only one aligned with Kroenke.  I would guess Kahn is aligned with Kroenke (given that Kahn was "introduced" to the NFL by Kroenke and awarded Jacksonville instead of St. Louis) ...and maybe the owners who were initially backed Kroenke for the LA stadium/move?  There just seems that there's a bigger payoff down the road for Jones (and other owners) to align with Kroenke.  I'm just not sure what it is yet.

pop_scientist wrote:

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Oct 27, 2021

But Jones is the only owner that's staying aligned with Kroenke.  They alone can't strong-arm any other owners.  Any attempt would probably result in a 30-2 vote amongst the owners against Kroenke and Jones.

Well the article definitely makes it seem like it's just Jones, but I'm not sure I believe it's just Jones.  Both Kroenke and Jones led the way for the LA transition, so they do seem to hold a lot of sway with the owners.

So, what's in it for Jones to align with Kroenke?  If Kroenke wins his lawsuit against the NFL, then Jones will be on the hook for legal fees for the St. Louis lawsuit. Why isn't Jones outraged?

Something seems to be going on behind the scenes, and my opinion is that Jones isn't the only one aligned with Kroenke.  I would guess Kahn is aligned with Kroenke (given that Kahn was "introduced" to the NFL by Kroenke and awarded Jacksonville instead of St. Louis) ...and maybe the owners who were initially backed Kroenke for the LA stadium/move?  There just seems that there's a bigger payoff down the road for Jones (and other owners) to align with Kroenke.  I'm just not sure what it is yet.

It’s certainly not 2 vs 30. Jones certainly has owners carrying his water. But Jones isn’t the only power broker there and likely others with power oppose Jones.

Take this to trial and get discovery entered into public record. Just look at the fallout from the WFT emails. Who woulda thought Goodell woulda used those to dispose of Gruden.

The amount of emails and certainly the content would be absolutely devastating to these owners. It prolly doesn’t sway the STL case but now you’ve got dirty laundry aired out for anyone else to use. That is priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many of your points are also the reason as to why they're all in this mess to begin with.  Yes Kroenke and Jones led the way for the LA relocation, but as the article points out, the other owners only allowed it to happen because of the indemnification agreement that Kroenke agreed to.  If Kroenke never signed the indemnification agreement, the Rams never relocate. 

Jones probably wants to spread the costs (including a future settlement payout) out across all owners, rather than him having to pay a larger share.  I'd bet that there's some damning emails back and forth between him and Kroenke that he knows would make him a target for specific damages or potentially open him up to exposure to other litigations.  He just wants to minimize his share of the risk pie and tried to use the "hey, we're all in this together!" approach that it seems the other owners saw right through.

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Oct 28, 2021

Many of your points are also the reason as to why they're all in this mess to begin with.  Yes Kroenke and Jones led the way for the LA relocation, but as the article points out, the other owners only allowed it to happen because of the indemnification agreement that Kroenke agreed to.  If Kroenke never signed the indemnification agreement, the Rams never relocate. 

Jones probably wants to spread the costs (including a future settlement payout) out across all owners, rather than him having to pay a larger share.  I'd bet that there's some damning emails back and forth between him and Kroenke that he knows would make him a target for specific damages or potentially open him up to exposure to other litigations.  He just wants to minimize his share of the risk pie and tried to use the "hey, we're all in this together!" approach that it seems the other owners saw right through.

Definitely agree with that, and they (Kroenke & Jones) probably want Davis out as well...both lawsuits could hit Davis pretty hard.

I think Mara holds more sway than Kroenke & Jones...and he's not happy.  It's interesting to hear about the Carson project and owners not wanting to move St. Louis.

This will be an interesting internal fight...and if they're fighting internally, then there's a better chance of a St. Louis win.  Kroenke also feels like a loss is coming his way, so he's trying to get out of paying all of it.

If St. Louis wins, and it comes out that most owners didn't want to move the team, then it could be perceived that the NFL didn't burn a bridge in STL, just Kroenke.  I wonder if that's another angle with a team coming back to STL as part of a settlement.

If the owners were pissed before, how about now that someone leaked all this; including that Mara basically admitted that the move would open them up to legal action? Instead of a unified front against a lawsuit, there are leaks all over and the owners will have to be concerned with dealing with multiple factions.

I know St. Louis isn't going to get another team, and I know it's not worth discussing with any seriousness or for any length of time; but I wish that the city could have the league build us a new riverfront stadium and provide the city with a new franchise, with no fee. St. Louis City should then be able to sell the expansion franchise to an owner that NFL owners agree upon. 

In an instance like this, the NFL could really get out of this for a billion or so. Just pay off the dome, build a new stadium, and "gift" a franchise that will still provide the city with its payday. 

^ I like your thinking....

^^I’m not so sure it’s as big a long shot as some think, for the NFL to try and get out of this mess by offering an expansion team, stadium help and more. Think about it.  If they place a team here, it’s a good long-term investment. They will make a boatload of money. If they just write a big fat check they get nothing long-term. Many in the know including Mike Florio  has said that  they’re have been rumblings within NFL circles about this possibility.  While there would have to be a lot worked out, I don’t think it is crazy to think that an expansion franchise could settle this.  Obviously a stadium and other considerations would have to be offered for a settlement to work for STL. Time will tell, but as of now, STL seems to be in the driver’s seat.

If that's really the case, take the free team, free stadium, still ask for like $3B in cash, and that checks off all the boxes.  Maybe force the NFL to agree to a Super Bowl in the next 10 years and the NFL draft in the next 15 or something too.  

No. *****. Settlements.

I wonder if the STL lawyers would consider a partial ownership in an expansion team as payment for their services.

NFL has their "tiger cubs" prospective owners list. Plenty of billionaires who'd jump at an NFL team whether its in Manhattan or Montana.

1. bullsh*t. They can afford it. Does anyone really believe "oh nnoooooo we can't afford a payout, please take this team as a settlement indead :poutyface:"?

2. Even if true, and a settlement would "bankrupt", or at least severely damage the league, that itself would be well worth it.

Don't settle.

If the judgement is that large, and the NFL can't afford it, then why not ask for a percentage of revenue?

Another question: If the judgement is that large, and a percentage of revenue is accepted by STL & NFL, can the NFL legally fold the league and start a new league (WFL - World Football League) to avoid payments?

They'd lose their existing anti-trust exemption if they did that.

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Oct 28, 2021

They'd lose their existing anti-trust exemption if they did that.

Well, it appears like they're going to pay STL a large sum of money.

Seen some talk on twitter earlier.  Everyone getting excitable and ahead of themselves.

If we get a new stadium it should go in Maryland Heights! 

That would be classic STL. Car centric, suburban, floodplain development. Would rather have nothing at all if that were the case tbh.