^ I've seen some articles in ESPN, NBC Sports, SI, and other sports focused publications. There may not be a flood of articles and they may not have the same level of interest as we do, but I'd imagine once a trial either starts or settlement talks heat up, you'll see more coverage. This isn't exactly something I'd expect to read about in the New York Times just yet, imho.
I’m almost ok with no press. I’d like it to be a discreet loss if STL loses.
The national stories that’ll follow a billion dollar win will be worth the wait.
The national stories that’ll follow a billion dollar win will be worth the wait.
- 62
Good breakdown by Daniel Wallach https://www.scoopswithdannymac.com/daniel-wallach-the-kilcoyne-conversation/. Daniel mentions how the multiplier for punitive damages could be as high as 10, and could theoretically result in a $20 billion decision. He doesn't think that's a very realistic outcome, but he seemed pretty confident that the final amount could be in the $2-5 billion range.
- 398
I was speaking to my manager, who is in Cinci and a HUGE Bengals fan. She was not aware of the lawsuit. Most of the info I get is from here 
I suspect the Bears organization and the city of Chicago may be rather interested in the outcome of this suit.
^Yup, sets a precedence. The city of Chicago might want to consider going after the Cardinals franchise for leaving in 1960 /s
- 991
I don't think the Bears moving to Arlington Heights is similar at all to what Kroenke pulled here. From what I've read and understand, the Bears can simply buy out the lease / pay a large penalty if they leave Soldier Field early. And they're being very proactive in stating what their intentions are while also staying in market / not spinning the situation and lying to fans. Feels more similar to when the 49ers moved from Candlestick Park in the city to Levi Stadium in Santa Clara. Heck, the moves by the Raiders to Las Vegas and Chargers to Los Angeles are definitely more similar to the Rams move than the Bears moving to Arlington Heights, and both of those situations didn't end up with a lawsuit like the Rams.urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 05, 2021I suspect the Bears organization and the city of Chicago may be rather interested in the outcome of this suit.
The Rams move to Los Angeles is a huge deal, but it only sets a precedence if the circumstances of the next city to challenge a team moving to a new stadium are identical to the Rams case or at least more egregious than what happened in the cases of the Raiders and Chargers.
Quick edit: I also would bet that with all of the risk Kroenke put the rest of the other owners at with his butchering of the Rams move, the Bears (and League) legal counsel reviewed every possible similarity and potential risk to the franchise by pursuing the Arlington Heights deal. Now, I also anticipate that if/when the Bears do officially move to Arlington Heights and break their lease that the city of Chicago will pursue some form of litigation against them. But I just don't see how the city would win if it's a clear cut contractual issue, the Bears pay the full early move penalty with zero fuss, and assuming there's no grey areas like a clause that states "The Bears will work in good faith to remain within the city of Chicago above all else, and only move if the city cannot deliver a world class level facility."
- 9,563
Bears won’t break their lease. It will take 3 more years at least to build the stadium, at that point they’ll buy out the rest of the lease which is under $100m and that’s nothing in the nfl
- 991
Not the same situation - the Bills' lease ends in 2023 and it's increasingly unlikely that they actually want to move the team. And they're proactively saying they may relocate if a new stadium isn't built - not stringing the city along while already knowing that they're going to move somewhere else.framer wrote: ↑Oct 06, 2021I'm sure they're paying attention in Buffalo.
^ Bills in some ways remind me of the Chargers. A owner & his family who knows that that they got the golden egg & will keep ownership, wants to stay, but also knows they want to get to a new stadium at some point and that option might be somewhere else if all else fails. Buffalo like St Louis will come up with a plan new stadium, lay it out and start looking at how to fund it. How the financing and subsidy plays out will be interesting. Buffalo will need big time help from state but at same time can see upstate politicians come to bat to counter the big dollar infrastructure items and state dollars flowing in NY City (rightfully so in terms of tax generation). So I can see Buffalo Bills, NY State and City getting to a deal. Unlike the Chargers that were simply not going to get the subsidy train making a stop in San Diego on the left coast just as it wasn't it going to happen in Oakland for the Raiders...
- 2,929
STL Biz Journal: Documents give window into potential arguments at trial over Rams' move
Two documents are mentioned in this article.
1. The Rams had a confidential August 2013 letter to the CVC, after the arbitration ruling, wherein they stated their right to relocation. This was in line with their original lease with the 20-year top-tier clause. This letter, written by Kevin Demoff, is apparently the first time the Rams organization told STL that they had the ability to "relocate". Generally speaking, this was well established and publicly understood. On one hand, it's a proactive defense positioning, with the Defendants stating that STL shouldn't have spent any money on the team if they knew (arguable) that the team could relocate. On the other, plaintiffs can say this goes against Demoff's past statements that StanK "didn't lead the charge to bring the Rams back to STL to lead the charge out of STL."
2. A 1999 NFL letter to US mayors, wherein the League stated its policies towards franchise relocation "establish an orderly process, ensuring municipal interests will be heard and addressed, and that franchise moves occur only after exhausting all reasonable options in a team's existing home territory... They assert an active and appropriate role for the League in managing possible relocations. They affirm the League's commitment that all obligations under stadium leases be fully honored." The League's current relocation guidelines are said to be "a direct result" of that letter to US mayors. This will further plaintiffs' argument that the League didn't follow its own relocation guidelines.
Also in the news...
CNBC: Here’s what’s at stake as St. Louis takes the NFL to court over the Rams’ relocation
NBC Dallas-Fort Worth: Jerry Jones' Finances Could Become Public as Part of Rams Lawsuit
Two documents are mentioned in this article.
1. The Rams had a confidential August 2013 letter to the CVC, after the arbitration ruling, wherein they stated their right to relocation. This was in line with their original lease with the 20-year top-tier clause. This letter, written by Kevin Demoff, is apparently the first time the Rams organization told STL that they had the ability to "relocate". Generally speaking, this was well established and publicly understood. On one hand, it's a proactive defense positioning, with the Defendants stating that STL shouldn't have spent any money on the team if they knew (arguable) that the team could relocate. On the other, plaintiffs can say this goes against Demoff's past statements that StanK "didn't lead the charge to bring the Rams back to STL to lead the charge out of STL."
2. A 1999 NFL letter to US mayors, wherein the League stated its policies towards franchise relocation "establish an orderly process, ensuring municipal interests will be heard and addressed, and that franchise moves occur only after exhausting all reasonable options in a team's existing home territory... They assert an active and appropriate role for the League in managing possible relocations. They affirm the League's commitment that all obligations under stadium leases be fully honored." The League's current relocation guidelines are said to be "a direct result" of that letter to US mayors. This will further plaintiffs' argument that the League didn't follow its own relocation guidelines.
Also in the news...
CNBC: Here’s what’s at stake as St. Louis takes the NFL to court over the Rams’ relocation
NBC Dallas-Fort Worth: Jerry Jones' Finances Could Become Public as Part of Rams Lawsuit
I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean it won't establish some precedents relevant to the Bears move, however.
Except that negotiations with the city to renovate Soldier Field, again, have been ongoing for years now. And on top of the several hundred million the city spent renovating Soldier Field less than two decades ago (which they will still be paying off for at least another decade), the city has spent millions trying to come up with a plan that would add seating and modern amenities and make it a "top-tier" stadium. And developers are also pitching multi-billion dollar mixed-use projects around Soldier Field, which are at least partially reliant upon it being an active entertainment venue.From what I've read and understand, the Bears can simply buy out the lease / pay a large penalty if they leave Soldier Field early. And they're being very proactive in stating what their intentions are while also staying in market / not spinning the situation and lying to fans.
Those negotiations weren't anywhere close to a stalemate. The city was willing to spend a billion $+ in another round of renovations, and at no point did the Bears ever state that they might end negotiations and make plans to relocate this early in the process. So the city was blindsided. It was simply that SoFi Stadium, and all the development potential around it, is making every other NFL owner swoon right now. And when the Arlington racetrack property became available, the Bears had visions of their own version of SoFi. And nothing would ever make Soldier Field capable of competing with that. It was a done deal the second that property went on the market, likely well before then, and the Bears weren't honest about that. (sound familiar?)
So, then...you do agree that they are both rather interested in the outcome of the St. Louis suit.Quick edit: I also would bet that with all of the risk Kroenke put the rest of the other owners at with his butchering of the Rams move, the Bears (and League) legal counsel reviewed every possible similarity and potential risk to the franchise by pursuing the Arlington Heights deal. Now, I also anticipate that if/when the Bears do officially move to Arlington Heights and break their lease that the city of Chicago will pursue some form of litigation against them. But I just don't see how the city would win if it's a clear cut contractual issue, the Bears pay the full early move penalty with zero fuss, and assuming there's no grey areas like a clause that states "The Bears will work in good faith to remain within the city of Chicago above all else, and only move if the city cannot deliver a world class level facility."
- 991
Nope. The city of Chicago may be curious to see what happens, but the Bears probably aren't worried at all. I see very few similarities between the situations and reasons why they'd put much weight into the STL / Rams lawsuit. At this point, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
- 9,563
Can we stop the silly idea of a new team as a settlement. Missouri, city and county are just suppose to pass on a settlement of billions just so bunch of local billionaires can get an nfl team? Only way a team is involved is if the NFL let’s the RSA auction of the team afterwards and proceeds split along the 3 entities minus 35% to the lawyers
- 991
Gah. Who's pushing the new team pipedream now? At least, from what I've read, the new team as a settlement idea only exists in the minds of NFL bloggers and die hard fans. I can't imagine the city, state, or lawyers have any interest in even entertaining it as a real outcome.
- 9,563
Isaac Bruce apparently. https://fansided.com/2021/10/09/isaac-b ... -new-team/Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021Gah. Who's pushing the new team pipedream now? At least, from what I've read, the new team as a settlement idea only exists in the minds of NFL bloggers and die hard fans. I can't imagine the city, state, or lawyers have any interest in even entertaining it as a real outcome.
Mike "Clickbait" Florio has another blog post which is likely driving some of the talk, in which he said that, "there’s an acknowledgment in league circles of the possibility that giving St. Louis a new team could help resolve the case."Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021Gah. Who's pushing the new team pipedream now? At least, from what I've read, the new team as a settlement idea only exists in the minds of NFL bloggers and die hard fans. I can't imagine the city, state, or lawyers have any interest in even entertaining it as a real outcome.
For some reason, he must believe it generates a lot of clicks, because he has been beating this drum for a long time:
NBC Sports: Could St. Louis emerge from Rams relocation case with an expansion team?
While I take what Florio says with a huge grain of salt because he is a clickbait slut, he's also got a direct pipeline to the league offices. Someone is using him as a middle man to send a message to St. Louis.urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021Mike "Clickbait" Florio has another blog post which is likely driving some of the talk, in which he said that, "there’s an acknowledgment in league circles of the possibility that giving St. Louis a new team could help resolve the case."Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021Gah. Who's pushing the new team pipedream now? At least, from what I've read, the new team as a settlement idea only exists in the minds of NFL bloggers and die hard fans. I can't imagine the city, state, or lawyers have any interest in even entertaining it as a real outcome.
For some reason, he must believe it generates a lot of clicks, because he has been beating this drum for a long time:
NBC Sports: Could St. Louis emerge from Rams relocation case with an expansion team?
At best, it would only be a sweetener to any settlement deal, a decoration on top of the icing on the cake.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021While I take what Florio says with a huge grain of salt because he is a clickbait slut, he's also got a direct pipeline to the league offices. Someone is using him as a middle man to send a message to St. Louis.
Say, for example, they negotiate a settlement of $1 billion (unlikely, but just throwing out a nice round number). The plaintiffs consider it, but ultimately say, "Nah, we'll take our chances at trial." Then, the NFL calls back and says, "Okay, we'll throw in a guaranteed, immovable expansion franchise within 10 years, the plaintiffs get to approve the owner, and get the future franchise fee to use for stadium improvements or a new stadium."
That would cost the NFL nothing right now, but the plaintiffs would be insane to turn it down, as the franchise fee alone will be worth well over a billion, likely billions...
I wouldn't trust the NFL with a 10 year guarantee. Or even 5 years.
The only way I take a team is with the NFL building the stadium, not a single penny from taxpayers and an expansion team owned by a 50/50 split of a wealthy owner (*cough* Carolyn Kindle Betz) and public share ownership like the Packers.
The only way I take a team is with the NFL building the stadium, not a single penny from taxpayers and an expansion team owned by a 50/50 split of a wealthy owner (*cough* Carolyn Kindle Betz) and public share ownership like the Packers.
- 9,563
I’m sure the Taylor’s are still billionaires but Andy wasn’t on this years list of 400 richest Americans. 2020 was a tough year for car rental industry.
STL- Pauline MacMillan Keinath (106 overall, $8.2 billion): Pauline MacMillan Keinath is believed to be the largest shareholder of Cargill, the largest food company in the world, with an estimated 13% stake.
Springfield- Johnny Morris (134 overall, $6.9 billion): Johnny Morris is founder and CEO of outdoor gear retailer Bass Pro Shops.
STL-David Steward (182 overall, $5.8 billion): David Steward is the founder and chairman of IT provider World Wide Technology.
STL-Jim McKelvey (269 overall, $4.2 billion): Jim McKelvey cofounded payments firm Square with Jack Dorsey in 2009 after he had trouble selling a $2,000 art piece from his studio.
STL-Rodger Riney (318 overall, $3,6 billion): Rodger Riney is the cofounder of discount brokerage firm Scottrade, which is now part of TD Ameritrade.
STL-Jim Kavanaugh (340 overall, $3.4 billion): Jim Kavanaugh is the CEO of IT provider World Wide
STL- Pauline MacMillan Keinath (106 overall, $8.2 billion): Pauline MacMillan Keinath is believed to be the largest shareholder of Cargill, the largest food company in the world, with an estimated 13% stake.
Springfield- Johnny Morris (134 overall, $6.9 billion): Johnny Morris is founder and CEO of outdoor gear retailer Bass Pro Shops.
STL-David Steward (182 overall, $5.8 billion): David Steward is the founder and chairman of IT provider World Wide Technology.
STL-Jim McKelvey (269 overall, $4.2 billion): Jim McKelvey cofounded payments firm Square with Jack Dorsey in 2009 after he had trouble selling a $2,000 art piece from his studio.
STL-Rodger Riney (318 overall, $3,6 billion): Rodger Riney is the cofounder of discount brokerage firm Scottrade, which is now part of TD Ameritrade.
STL-Jim Kavanaugh (340 overall, $3.4 billion): Jim Kavanaugh is the CEO of IT provider World Wide
- 144
Thoughts @gone corporate ?
NFL wants separate trials on liability and damages in Rams relocation case
NFL wants separate trials on liability and damages in Rams relocation case
- 1,868
I've lost interest in the NFL but I would turn out to watch the municipally-owned St. Louis Settlement play some games.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2021Can we stop the silly idea of a new team as a settlement. Missouri, city and county are just suppose to pass on a settlement of billions just so bunch of local billionaires can get an nfl team? Only way a team is involved is if the NFL let’s the RSA auction of the team afterwards and proceeds split along the 3 entities minus 35% to the lawyers