urbanSTL

St. Louis is looking for the entirety of the relocation fee the Rams must pay to the NFL, which is $550 million, in addition to other damages. 

The $550 million is just a portion of what the city is seeking. 

Who would get the money? If we win the lawsuit does that mean hundreds of millions will be invested in the city? Convention upgrades? Infrastructure improvements?

I believe the money would be split several ways between the city, state, CVC, and probably other entities. I'm not sure how the percentages would play out. 

But if St. Louis wins this lawsuit, and wins the appeals, and then the appeals of the appeals, and winds up with an absurdly large sum of cash in their lap, I hope that the money would be used to help improve the convention center further, to partially fund the N-S Metrolink line, to fund sweeping change in city schools, social welfare systems, infrastructure and streetscape improvements, start-ups, etc. 

I'd also want to see money used to attract investment to North City. 

I think the state would be wrong to spend any money outside of the St. Louis region, but it's Missouri, so I imagine that St. Louis would only see a small portion, if any, of the money that the state would receive, re-invested in the region.  

I thought the state was involved. I guess I'm wrong about that. 

I'm not sure how I would want the County to use the money should we ever get that far. 

Another thing: If St. Louis is actually able to scratch and claw their way to a multi-billion dollar victory in courts years from now, I hope the city would erect a statue of Stan Kroenke somewhere outside the Dome - and I hope they'd announce it mere days after a defeated Kroenke is forced to sell the Rams. 

It is my understanding that Kroenke is on the hook for a lot, lot more than the other owners in this lawsuit. A loss in court, coupled with the significant cost overruns of his stadium, could maybe, possibly, potentially force him to sell.

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Nov 25, 2019

It is my understanding that Kroenke is on the hook for a lot, lot more than the other owners in this lawsuit. A loss in court, coupled with the significant cost overruns of his stadium, could maybe, possibly, potentially force him to sell.

There's the catch 22.. Part of the relocation agreement was Kroenke was not allowed to move the team and then flip it for a profit once the stadium was built.  You'd think many smaller market owners would get very upset.  You'd probably seem him have to sell, the NBA/NHL and Arsenal teams..

I didn't realize he wasn't allowed to sell.

Still, I could see the NFL owners allowing him to sell if their LA-based owner is effectively financially crippled.

If not, I think you might see him unload the other franchises.

It's possible with a loss in court and the cost overruns, that Kroenke may never see the day where his investment actually pays off and rewards him a single cent.

But, even if LA is a mediocre NFL market, this stadium will host countless Super Bowls, NCAA championships in football and basketball, Taylor Swift concerts, mega conventions, and more.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Nov 25, 2019

Am I remembering it incorrectly but even if St. Louis had done the $750 million Dome renovations, wouldn't it have meant the following?
1)the Rams would have had to play 2 or 3 seasons at a neutral site?
2) the convention center would have been unusable for like 12 to 18 months?
3)Kroenke wouldn't agree to a lease extension; Not even a token couple of years?

Yes, all of that. At most they probably would have lost 2 seasons at the Dome - I'm guessing they could have completed the renovations in a 28-30 month timespan, starting right after the 2012 season ended and wrapping it up in spring/summer 2015. The original lease was through March 2025, but it was contingent on the stadium being rated as a top tier facility in 2005 and again in 2015. I don't think losing the facility for 2 seasons would have required Kroenke to take on any additional time on the back end, so assuming the CVC agreed to the terms and did the renovations after the 2012 season (losing 2013 and 2014), the Rams would have had 10 seasons (2015-2024) in the new and improved Dome before they would have been free to go. A $750 million renovation with a guarantee for only ten more years of hosting an NFL team hardly would have been worth it.

And, as you noted, the loss of revenue would have been massive above and beyond the $750 million pricetag for the renovations. I don't know if the terms of the original 1995 lease allowed for the CVC to propose an entirely new stadium before the 2015 benchmark - I'm pretty sure it was only for Dome-specific renovations. More concisely, I don't know if Kroenke would have been legally required to stay if the north riverfront stadium had been proposed in 2012 (and completed by 2015) as an alternative to renovating the Dome. The independent arbitrator probably would have had to make the call on that one.

The CVC asbolutely made the right call in telling Kroenke to get bent on that counteroffer. The only way the $750 million proposal would have been worth it would have been if the Rams committed to at least a new 25 year lease starting in 2015 - without the outrageous 10 year benchmark requirements.

and now these unequal partners are locked in a bitter fight, stoked by Kroenke's fury over cost overruns exceeding $3 billion, questions over the Chargers' long-term viability in the market, a lawsuit seeking billions over Kroenke's departure from St. Louis that has engulfed the entire league, and an increasingly fractious and sometimes petty civil war between Rams and Chargers officials, according to documents and nearly two dozen interviews with owners, league and team executives, and lawyers. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28117460/inside-rams-chargers-marriage-nfl-fights-los-angeles

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 25, 2019

The CVC asbolutely made the right call in telling Kroenke to get bent on that counteroffer. The only way the $750 million proposal would have been worth it would have been if the Rams committed to at least a new 25 year lease starting in 2015 - without the outrageous 10 year benchmark requirements.

Which is why that "counteroffer" was made.  The Rams knew it was completely unreasonable and unacceptable, and that their proposal would be rejected, from the outset.  They simply did that so they could use it in their relocation justification to the NFL.  There was no rational plan that the CVC, city and county could have ever put together that the Rams would have accepted.  They never genuinely attempted to negotiate a solution, because they never intended to stay.  Hence, the claims of fraud and "not negotiating in good faith" in the lawsuit.

The only thing I really wonder about all of this is exactly when stanK decided he would take the team back to LA.  I would love to see his phone records going back to 1995, because I believe this was always his intention - that as soon as he acquired majority control of the team, acquired a stadium site in LA, and could get out of the dome lease, that he would move them back.  Jerry Jones was probably whispering in his ear the moment stanK became minority partner of the Rams.

I would also really like to know when Wal-Mart acquired the initial 30+ acre property in Inglewood which I believe is the actual stadium site.  I would not be surprised if someone there acquired it for stanK, to keep it on the down low...

[quote

The only thing I really wonder about all of this is exactly when stanK decided he would take the team back to LA.  I would love to see his phone records going back to 1995, because I believe this was always his intention - that as soon as he acquired majority control of the team, acquired a stadium site in LA, and could get out of the dome lease, that he would move them back.  Jerry Jones was probably whispering in his ear the moment stanK became minority partner of the Rams.
.[/quote]

I can tell you all that in 2007 Kroenke with the help of the league attempted to form a local group to buy Georgia’s 60% prior to her passing.  The night Faulk’s number was retired against the Steelers on a Thursday night, was a cocktail party at Tony’s.  The commissioners entire staff came to town, I used to have the agenda, travel list and attendee list.  The purpose was for Stan to woo some of St. Louis’ blue blood A listers.  The problem was Stan wanted those folks to buy the majority of the team, but he’d own the biggest piece and be the managing partner.  Problem is/was Stan’s not the most social and outgoing.. it was like oil and water.   He wanted that group to pay the freight, but have no say.  Needless to say it ended badly and a blood feud started...
Stan was offered to trade franchises with Shad Kahn and move the Jags to LA.  His intention since 2010 was to move to LA.  Also, when Fusz Sports took over Rams Park, they found the escape plans for a quick move dating to 2010 in Demoffs office....

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Nov 26, 2019

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 25, 2019

The CVC asbolutely made the right call in telling Kroenke to get bent on that counteroffer. The only way the $750 million proposal would have been worth it would have been if the Rams committed to at least a new 25 year lease starting in 2015 - without the outrageous 10 year benchmark requirements.

Which is why that "counteroffer" was made.  The Rams knew it was completely unreasonable and unacceptable, and that their proposal would be rejected, from the outset.  They simply did that so they could use it in their relocation justification to the NFL.  There was no rational plan that the CVC, city and county could have ever put together that the Rams would have accepted.  They never genuinely attempted to negotiate a solution, because they never intended to stay.  Hence, the claims of fraud and "not negotiating in good faith" in the lawsuit.

I have no doubt that they negotiated in bad faith, but the problem is that the arbitrator agreed with them, because the terms of the original lease were pretty unambiguous - the Dome had to be ranked in the top 25% of stadiums in the NFL (IOW, one of the top eight) at the start of the 2005 and 2015 seasons, or the Rams were free to break the lease. The CVC's $125 million renovation offer clearly would not have been significant enough to bring the Dome to a level where an independent auditor would have declared it one of the 8 best stadiums in the NFL. Not a chance. Kroenke knew that, and he knew the arbitrator would find in his favor when the call had to be made about whether or not the CVC's offer would be good enough to meet the requirements of the lease. He shot for the moon both because he knew it wouldn't be accepted, but also because he knew the language of the lease would work in his favor when the inevitable dispute arose.

Again, I go back to the idiotic agreement that FANS, Inc. offered Frontiere at the front end of this whole mess in 1995 - they should have known there was no realistic way to maintain the Dome as one of the top tier stadiums in the NFL without incurring massive expenses with so many new stadiums already in the planning stages or under construction at that time. 6 new stadiums opened after the Dome by the start of the Rams fifth season in St. Louis (1999), and another 9 new stadiums opened between 2000-2003. By the time it was just 8 years old, the Dome was already older than nearly half of all the stadiums in the NFL. By the time the Rams left, the Dome was the 8th oldest stadium in the league, and 3 of the older stadiums - Mercedes-Benz Superdome, Arrowhead Stadium, Hard Rock Stadium - each underwent massive renovations after the Dome opened.

The original lease was a disaster waiting to happen before the ink was even dry.

I don’t know. In 1995 domed stadiums were the top stadiums and not that many new domed stadiums were expected in the next 20 years compared to previous years. But then the NFL started throwing in hundreds of millions into new stadiums. That changed the top stadia criteria to stadium luxury which pushed existing new stadiums out of the top 1/4 of the best. Kronke’s changes to the dome involved rebuilding the East side of the dome further from the field and adding an opening roof, something newest stadiums in Minneapolis and LA don’t do anymore. From fan closeness to the field, temperature, wind, and light control criteria, the dome was still a top 1/4 stadium. But the criteria became number of bars and restaurants, luxury boxes, and size of video for the fans so high in mega-stadia that they can’t see the field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From Fox2 ---

Judge rules NFL and Rams must start turning over documents
POSTED 10:40 PM, NOVEMBER 25, 2019, BY ANDY BANKER, UPDATED AT 08:55PM, NOVEMBER 25, 2019


ST. LOUIS - Frustrations mounted in a St. Louis courtroom, Monday, as St. Louis and the NFL squared off again. 
 
The St. Louis side emerged with another victory. 
 
At issue was how much information and how quickly did the NFL have to share with people from St. Louis who are suing the league and its teams.  After 2 and ½ years of the case, the parties involved seem to be reaching their limits.  Bob Blitz, lead attorney for the St. Louis group, left the courthouse saying little.  In the courtroom, he complained of more delays from the NFL.
“There’s nothing new, they don’t want to answer the interrogatories,” he told Fox 2/News 11, referring to the St. Louis group’s requests for information.  “You heard what I said (in court).  I’ll stand by that.”
 
Blitz and a team of attorneys for St. Louis City, County, and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, which owns the dome where the St. Louis Rams played for 21 seasons, are seeking millions of dollars in damages.  That includes close to $17-million spent on planning a new stadium to keep the Rams here.  The suit claims Rams owner, Stan Kroenke, and the league encouraged the effort, even though they were already working to move the Rams back to Los Angeles.
 
The St. Louis group is seeking documents from all teams and league officials relating to the move going back 10 years.  Judge, Christopher McGraugh, conceded the request was overbroad.  He got the two sides to agree to narrow the scope. 

In another matter, the name of former St. Louis Rams and Los Angeles Rams coach, Jeff Fisher, surfaced.  An attorney for the St. Louis group said the Rams had supplied “zero” communication records related to the LA move and said the Rams agreed to provide materials from only 6 members of the Rams staff.  Fisher, a critical figure in the relocation, was not among those six.  St. Louis group sought communications from dozens of Rams staff.  The judge gave the Rams until December 16th to start turning over the materials. 
That decision joins the list of those going against Kroenke and the NFL.

When asked if the league, Kroenke, and the Rams were getting a fair shake in St. Louis, Benjamin Razi, an attorney for the NFL told Fox2/News11, “I don’t think we have any comment.”

The judge set another hearing for December 19th at which he hopes to start finally narrowing in on a trial date. 

https://fox2now.com/2019/11/25/judge-ru ... documents/

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Nov 26, 2019

I don’t know. In 1995 domed stadiums were the top stadiums and not that many new domed stadiums were expected in the next 20 years compared to previous years. But then the NFL started throwing in hundreds of millions into new stadiums. That changed the top stadia criteria to stadium luxury which pushed existing new stadiums out of the top 1/4 of the best. Kronke’s changes to the dome involved rebuilding the East side of the dome further from the field and adding an opening roof, something newest stadiums in Minneapolis and LA don’t do anymore. From fan closeness to the field, temperature, wind, and light control criteria, the dome was still a top 1/4 stadium. But the criteria became number of bars and restaurants, luxury boxes, and size of video for the fans so high in mega-stadia that they can’t see the field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SoFi Stadium doesn't have a roof that opens, but it is effectively an open air stadium, with a clear plastic umbrella over it. There is no climate control inside the stadium, and if it's windy outside, the fans inside the stadium will feel it. U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis is fully enclosed and climate controlled, but most of the roof is glass, so all of the sunshine still gets in (while keeping the Minnesota winter cold out).

The Dome at America's Center is the last NFL dome stadium ever built. Since then, there have been two newer fully-enclosed stadiums built with fixed (non-opening) roofs - Ford Field and U.S. Bank Stadium - but every other new stadium with a roof has a retractable opening (NRG Stadium, State Farm Stadium, Lucas Oil Field, AT&T Stadium, and Mercedes-Benz Stadium)

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Nov 26, 2019

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Nov 25, 2019

Indeed. Sourcing the recent ESPN article, the Plaintiffs are seeking the relocation fees for both the Rams and the Chargers (who wouldn't be going to LA if not for Inglewood) from the other 31 NFL franchises. That totals around $1.1BB (550MM relocation fee x 2). This also doesn't take into consideration the increased private valuation of the Rams franchise when it officially relocated to Inglewood, which more than doubled overnight. I'd say KSDK's info is incorrect or perhaps outdated. That stated, I personally cannot source or confirm a hard number for what the Plaintiffs are seeking monetarily from the Defendants. FYI Casenet doesn't have damages being sought listed. If anyone can find a current source for this, I'd definitely appreciate it being linked here. 

If not for the Rams mega-stadium proposal dazzling the NFL owners, the Chargers would have been equal partners with the Raiders in the new stadium in Carson, CA.  The NFL more or less forced the Chargers to be the Rams' tenant in Inglewood.  So, I really don't understand the reasoning, and have yet to see any, behind the plaintiffs claim on the Chargers relocation fee.

It's about the venue, not the tenant. The League denied Carson and compelled the Chargers to go to Inglewood as their only path to LA. Inglewood being approved was contingent on it being a two-franchise venue, and the League obligated Spanos to become an unwilling tenant of Kroenke if he was to enter that market. That's why the Chargers wouldn't be going to LA "if not for" StanK's Inglewood project being approved, and that's why the Plaintiffs posit that they have a claim to those monies. It's less about the Chargers and more about the Inglewood stadium being built. After all, if Carson was chosen, and the Chargers & Raiders were relocating there, then the Rams were denied relocation and there wouldn't be a suit on which to speak.

Plus, Plaintiffs are encouraged to cite damages wherever they may exist, as you don't want to leave anything on the table when a verdict's rendered. 

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Nov 26, 2019

Those are some very specific allegations... Can you offer anything to validate these statements? 

• "Escape Plan" - Do you know if any documents that could verify or validate these statements were retained/preserved/copied/whatever by, say, Fusz Sports, or any other local party? 
• Trading with Shad Khan for the Jaguars - When do you claim this happened? Do you have any sources to cite? Should this be true, then it's very reasonable that the Plaintiffs will have Shad Khan testify in open court to these things. The timeline of this allegation could be huge. 

Note that I ask for sources not to question the credibility of the poster but to validate these impressive charges. Seriously, this is the ballgame if real. 

Yes, Fusz Sports turned it over to the correct people.....the individual who found it told me.
The Shad Kahn piece was around the spring/summer before the relocation vote, can't cite a source because it's first hand from someone very involved...
The league is bent so far over the barrel on this mess.  They truly believed STL would just take it with a smile...

I hope this causes Stank many a sleepless nights.  That slim ball would sell his own child if he thought he could make a buck.

Demoff did leave such a document behind he is dumber than I thought!!!!