It's only getting a lot of attention because some folks thought the snarky headline, "Rams Ask To Relocate From St. Louis, Again" would garner a lot of clicks, which I'm sure it did...gone corporate wrote: ↑Aug 20, 2021Non-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: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)
- 3,431
So to avoid losing anti-trust exemption, the NFL wrote “Policy and Procedure for Proposed Franchise Relocations”. But when they want to move for $$s, it’s just a guideline.
If St Louis loses, let’s get Cori to go after that exemption. Who would object to making these elitist urban billionaires follow laws and rules the rest of us are expected to follow when we invest in a company - or in a football season ticket.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If St Louis loses, let’s get Cori to go after that exemption. Who would object to making these elitist urban billionaires follow laws and rules the rest of us are expected to follow when we invest in a company - or in a football season ticket.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,291
Their friends in Congress would.gary kreie wrote: ↑Aug 21, 2021Who would object to making these elitist urban billionaires follow laws and rules the rest of us are expected to follow when we invest in a company - or in a football season ticket.
- 3,431
St Louis was a better place when America practiced actual capitalism and enforced anti-trust laws. Now we have kind of a Chinese or Russia style feudal capitalism designed to concentrate power and wealth in the kings’ families instead of sharing with stakeholder peasants. Maybe when a corporation gets to a certain size, the workers and towns where they live should get to share power with the shareholders - like when unions existed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When was that?gary kreie wrote: ↑Aug 21, 2021St Louis was a better place when America practiced actual capitalism and enforced anti-trust laws.
- 3,431
- 2,929
Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure the antitrust folks at the Justice Department are waiting in the wings, watching this case play out. It's in their interests to see how this all plays out in the court room, with certain statements and documents entering the public record, and then move forward with whatever it is they intend to do here.gary kreie wrote: ↑Aug 21, 2021So to avoid losing anti-trust exemption, the NFL wrote “Policy and Procedure for Proposed Franchise Relocations”. But when they want to move for $$s, it’s just a guideline.
If St Louis loses, let’s get Cori to go after that exemption. Who would object to making these elitist urban billionaires follow laws and rules the rest of us are expected to follow when we invest in a company - or in a football season ticket.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,868
Agreed, capitalism is at its best when the workers own the means of production.gary kreie wrote: ↑Aug 21, 2021St Louis was a better place when America practiced actual capitalism and enforced anti-trust laws. Now we have kind of a Chinese or Russia style feudal capitalism designed to concentrate power and wealth in the kings’ families instead of sharing with stakeholder peasants. Maybe when a corporation gets to a certain size, the workers and towns where they live should get to share power with the shareholders - like when unions existed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2,929
^And that's another reason why I manage stock portfolios and encourage everyone to own a little bit of corporate America.
STL Biz Journal: Judge denies bid to move Rams trial out of St. Louis
This was expected, but good to hear all the same.
There's solid gold in the article:
By that logic, the court says a jury in STL cannot be biased because, per Defendants' argument, the jury members must be indifferent to the NFL already.
Therefore, no change of venue is needed.
See y'all Downtown in January!
This was expected, but good to hear all the same.
There's solid gold in the article:
Hilarious. Defendants' argument was that they relocated the team because they say STL didn't care for the NFL.St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Christopher McGraugh, in denying the league's motion for a change of venue, said there's no evidence that potential city jurors have an inherent bias.
He also said there's no evidence that potential jurors have read-pretrial coverage of the case, which dates to 2017.
"With complete deference to the fifth estate, a lot of people don't get their news anymore from the newspapers or news outlets," McGraugh said, adding that most of the articles, which contain opinion, were published more than a year ago.
"Any sort of recent articles, in many respects, have been generated by the defendants themselves," McGraugh said, referencing the defendants' decision to hold a hearing on their bid last week to strike counts in the case, an attempt to avoid a trial altogether. McGraugh indicated he could have considered that bid without a public hearing.
He also said potential jurors will be questioned thoroughly, "and if they respond to any sort of biased or prejudiced question contained in the questionnaire I'm going to permit that juror to be examined individually by the parties."
The defendants' latest position, he said, is also undermined by their previous arguments.
The Rams and NFL maintain that they didn't have to follow league relocation guidelines, but even if they did, "there wasn't enough support in this community to maintain the team."
"It seems now to be able to say that this community is so angry that they'll punish them for leaving seems to be contrary," McGraugh said.
By that logic, the court says a jury in STL cannot be biased because, per Defendants' argument, the jury members must be indifferent to the NFL already.
Therefore, no change of venue is needed.
See y'all Downtown in January!
Randy Karraker's Twitter feed is priceless.
NFL argued that a city jury would work in the city's interest regarding loss of jobs, civic pride and economic development.
Judge asks for evidence of that.
NFL attorney Bob Haar argues that STL attorneys will appeal to city residents' interests.
Judge asks "how do I know that?"
Around and around they go.
Judge McGraugh says "It's deja vu all over again."
NFL also argues that damages STL is asking for will be unfairly awarded by STL jury.
Says STL is asking for 10 figures.
Judge asks "do you want me presume damages will be in their interest?"
Haar:(regarding STL jurors favoring STL because of damages), says (paraphrasing) If it will increase the money generated by the city. "That's an interest any city juror would have."
McGraugh: "you're asking me to presume they would have an interest that I don't know that they have."
Judge McGraugh: "The defense position is somewhat undermined by the pretrial approach that they've taken. If the league did abide by the relocation guidelines, then they believe that St. Louis didn't care about the Rams leaving. Now you're saying the city is so mad that they'll punish the NFL for allowing the team to move." Good point
- 9,563
No. He just wants to limit the disclosure of financial documents.urbanitas wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2021StanK still has a petition to SCOMO for a new judge right?
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... eme-court/
Kroenke is willing to produce his financial statements for the past three years, but he wants to protect information related to enterprises unrelated to the Rams and/or the massive fortune of his wife, Ann Walton, a multi-billionaire Wal-Mart heiress.
I’d prefer just cold hard cash and avoiding public money altogether… but lets say this was realistic…
A scenario I’d be happy with. The NFL pays the remaining debt and possible demo of dome + cash used for previous proposal.
Bob Clark (rich enough?) steps in and buys East St. Louis riverfront property and works his Chicago HQ status to pull political will for an East riverfront stadium.
NFL, Clark, Illinois, and stadium specific taxing district, pay for new stadium with a 100 year lease and commits to three Super Bowls over 20 years.
- 2,929
^I believe a STL team playing in East STL is an unfeasible settlement for the City. This is because the City levies its payroll taxes upon NFL players' salaries.
Reasoning: In 2015, Peyton Manning made $15MM base salary while QB for the Broncos ($4MM more with bonus and salary cap). That's for playing 16 games per year. Now, he didn't play in STL that year, but if he did, he'd owe the City $9,375 in earnings taxes. That's just one player for one game. In fact, the average NFL salary in 2015 was $2.15MM. With 53 players on the roster, that means the City collected an average of $1.14MM per game just in visiting player salaries. If you do both the local and visitor teams, that's estimated average earnings taxes of $18.2MM per season. That's only gone up since 2015; hell, KC QB Patrick Mahomes' making $45MM this year all by himself, three times Peyton Manning in his prime earnings years. The City of STL - and the rest of the plaintiffs - don't want to see any potential new STL team go to East STL and will fight it.
Same time, I think the only way STL gets a team is if an existing team relocates, as the rest of the League doesn't want any more than 32 teams because of how divisible that number is (2 conferences of 16 teams, with 4 divisions of 4 teams apiece). The only viable candidate is the Chargers, who StanK wants out of his Inglewood stadium anyways. The team's currently valued at $2.6BB. I don't think the Spanos family wants to relocate their team to STL. Further, I'm not sure they are willing to sell, and the League cannot compel a franchise owner to sell in order to facilitate such a settlement. Plus, who'd buy it? They won't give a team to the City itself, or a public trust like exists in Green Bay, because that just makes their financial records all the more public. I'm not sure the local market is ready to trust anyone who's not currently a STL resident and/or has very strong ties to STL region, i.e. Shad Khan. And no, I don't see the Jags coming to STL.
***** Funny idea: Plaintiffs' counsel will garner 35% of any awarded judgment as they are and have been working on a contingency basis this whole time. If this really gets to be in the multi-billions, the lawyers could team up and become part owners of a franchise with their fees!
Reasoning: In 2015, Peyton Manning made $15MM base salary while QB for the Broncos ($4MM more with bonus and salary cap). That's for playing 16 games per year. Now, he didn't play in STL that year, but if he did, he'd owe the City $9,375 in earnings taxes. That's just one player for one game. In fact, the average NFL salary in 2015 was $2.15MM. With 53 players on the roster, that means the City collected an average of $1.14MM per game just in visiting player salaries. If you do both the local and visitor teams, that's estimated average earnings taxes of $18.2MM per season. That's only gone up since 2015; hell, KC QB Patrick Mahomes' making $45MM this year all by himself, three times Peyton Manning in his prime earnings years. The City of STL - and the rest of the plaintiffs - don't want to see any potential new STL team go to East STL and will fight it.
Same time, I think the only way STL gets a team is if an existing team relocates, as the rest of the League doesn't want any more than 32 teams because of how divisible that number is (2 conferences of 16 teams, with 4 divisions of 4 teams apiece). The only viable candidate is the Chargers, who StanK wants out of his Inglewood stadium anyways. The team's currently valued at $2.6BB. I don't think the Spanos family wants to relocate their team to STL. Further, I'm not sure they are willing to sell, and the League cannot compel a franchise owner to sell in order to facilitate such a settlement. Plus, who'd buy it? They won't give a team to the City itself, or a public trust like exists in Green Bay, because that just makes their financial records all the more public. I'm not sure the local market is ready to trust anyone who's not currently a STL resident and/or has very strong ties to STL region, i.e. Shad Khan. And no, I don't see the Jags coming to STL.
***** Funny idea: Plaintiffs' counsel will garner 35% of any awarded judgment as they are and have been working on a contingency basis this whole time. If this really gets to be in the multi-billions, the lawyers could team up and become part owners of a franchise with their fees!
A cash payout, even partial, is I believe very much in play. I'm still thinking how much trouble the League can be in for violating antitrust legislation by explicitly ignoring their relocation guidelines. They are playing with fire and should be truly desperate to keep this out of court. That's worth quite a few billion in cash right there, getting more expensive as the court date grows closer.
So what would my form of settlement look like?
FYI $10BB is a rough estimate of the Rams' franchise value plus the costs to build the new Inglewood stadium.
Here's another thought... The League's owners hate Stank Kroenke, both for getting the League into this mess and because he's a jerk. Basically, they wouldn't mind if he was gone. He brought a team to the LA market and built the Inglewood stadium; his usefulness going forward is minimal. Concurrently, StanK already is on the hook for all the League's legal fees (although more could be enjoined by the courts), an assumption of liabilities he had to sign to get the Rams relocation approved. He has a personal net worth about $11BB (including franchise ownerships), and his wife's net worth is around $8.5BB (Walton heiress). Maybe the League wouldn't mind if Kroenke owes so much in legal fees that he's compelled to sell the Rams franchise to another ownership group. Maybe STL wouldn't hate the NFL if the League showed Kroenke the door.
So what would my form of settlement look like?
- I'd first want an explicit apology from the League to STL and a declaration by them that they were a bunch of lying d*cks. After that,
- I'd like STL to have a team, locally owned and not able to relocate out of the metro area; and a new stadium, municipally owned, and paid for by the League. That'd total around $5BB.
- I want STL to host a couple Super Bowls here just so we can watch Roger Goodell eat sh*t in front of a mic talking about how awesome STL is.
- I'd also like the League to pay for replacing the Dome with the Bob Clark-inspired convention center expansion ($800MM-1BB?).
- Most of all, I want cash, although typing the numbers possible here are so large that it just seems unrealistic. As punitive damages are likely very much in play, and with the League having just signed their new $100BB 10-year broadcasting rights contract, I'm trying to keep my thoughts in check.
FYI $10BB is a rough estimate of the Rams' franchise value plus the costs to build the new Inglewood stadium.
Here's another thought... The League's owners hate Stank Kroenke, both for getting the League into this mess and because he's a jerk. Basically, they wouldn't mind if he was gone. He brought a team to the LA market and built the Inglewood stadium; his usefulness going forward is minimal. Concurrently, StanK already is on the hook for all the League's legal fees (although more could be enjoined by the courts), an assumption of liabilities he had to sign to get the Rams relocation approved. He has a personal net worth about $11BB (including franchise ownerships), and his wife's net worth is around $8.5BB (Walton heiress). Maybe the League wouldn't mind if Kroenke owes so much in legal fees that he's compelled to sell the Rams franchise to another ownership group. Maybe STL wouldn't hate the NFL if the League showed Kroenke the door.
Yeah, I conflated the two plays.dweebe wrote: ↑Sep 15, 2021No. He just wants to limit the disclosure of financial documents.urbanitas wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2021StanK still has a petition to SCOMO for a new judge right?
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... eme-court/
Asking the judge to recuse himself would be the last play the defense has left. I don't believe they have started down that road yet, but they would petition the appeals court if he refuses, which he almost certainly would.
That'd be about 10% of annual earnings taxes. I don't think your math checks out.gone corporate wrote: ↑Sep 15, 2021that's estimated average earnings taxes of $18.2MM per season.
StlMag - Earnings Tax, Income Tax, and the Rams
https://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earn ... -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.
- 134
I’d like $280 million (cost to build the dome) from each owner that voted for the Rams to leave St. Louis.
That total amount ($8.4 Billion) can include:
- at least 50% of settlement is in cash
- Demo of Dome
- Replaced with a Top Tier Stadium (Top 5)
- New expansion team / Chargers
- The names of the two owners who voted against the Rams move as the stadium name
- 100 year lease / no move clause
- A Super Bowl every 4 years for the first 20 years
- A public apology to St. Louis
Anti-trust exemptions are expensive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That total amount ($8.4 Billion) can include:
- at least 50% of settlement is in cash
- Demo of Dome
- Replaced with a Top Tier Stadium (Top 5)
- New expansion team / Chargers
- The names of the two owners who voted against the Rams move as the stadium name
- 100 year lease / no move clause
- A Super Bowl every 4 years for the first 20 years
- A public apology to St. Louis
Anti-trust exemptions are expensive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GC, love the analysis but feel you need to get in the realm of possibility and the fact that going all the way to Jury verdict in hope of of punitive damages in the billions will simply mean litigation for years to come. At this point, their is more and more incentives to come out settlement for all the parties IMO and no one is going hand St Louis region billions because Rams value can somehow be tallied at $10 billion.
So what I'm curious is what people think is the amount of hard cash settlement would parties agree too? straight up number. I'm at $425 to 450 million - it is under $500 million and Lawyers walk away with $150 million from Stan K/NFL (reversed engineered my number). Of course, like all these settlement their will be NO apology and no wrongdoing. Leaving $275 to $300 million for the St. Louis stakeholders
Being in the $400 to $500 million range also keeps NFL Rams and possible future Raider's settlement to around $1 billion total and it doesn't sideline a possible future Bills move. A $500 million also sets a number that NFL can go back to City of Buffalo as a payoff if team moves and or offer same amount for state of the art stadium for Bills to stay up as long as city ponies equivalent or more. I think NFL rather pay for lawyers and spend years in courts if St Louis, or Oakland and maybe even Buffalo start looking for billions.
So what I'm curious is what people think is the amount of hard cash settlement would parties agree too? straight up number. I'm at $425 to 450 million - it is under $500 million and Lawyers walk away with $150 million from Stan K/NFL (reversed engineered my number). Of course, like all these settlement their will be NO apology and no wrongdoing. Leaving $275 to $300 million for the St. Louis stakeholders
Being in the $400 to $500 million range also keeps NFL Rams and possible future Raider's settlement to around $1 billion total and it doesn't sideline a possible future Bills move. A $500 million also sets a number that NFL can go back to City of Buffalo as a payoff if team moves and or offer same amount for state of the art stadium for Bills to stay up as long as city ponies equivalent or more. I think NFL rather pay for lawyers and spend years in courts if St Louis, or Oakland and maybe even Buffalo start looking for billions.
Those numbers could very well be what the NFL/Rams might offer. The question is does the St. Louis group agree and my guess is they don't.dredger wrote: ↑Sep 16, 2021GC, love the analysis but feel you need to get in the realm of possibility and the fact that going all the way to Jury verdict in hope of of punitive damages in the billions will simply mean litigation for years to come. At this point, their is more and more incentives to come out settlement for all the parties IMO and no one is going hand St Louis region billions because Rams value can somehow be tallied at $10 billion.
So what I'm curious is what people think is the amount of hard cash settlement would parties agree too? straight up number. I'm at $425 to 450 million - it is under $500 million and Lawyers walk away with $150 million from Stan K/NFL (reversed engineered my number). Of course, like all these settlement their will be NO apology and no wrongdoing. Leaving $275 to $300 million for the St. Louis stakeholders
Being in the $400 to $500 million range also keeps NFL Rams and possible future Raider's settlement to around $1 billion total and it doesn't sideline a possible future Bills move. A $500 million also sets a number that NFL can go back to City of Buffalo as a payoff if team moves and or offer same amount for state of the art stadium for Bills to stay up as long as city ponies equivalent or more. I think NFL rather pay for lawyers and spend years in courts if St Louis, or Oakland and maybe even Buffalo start looking for billions.