St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

by CFL2USA » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:01 pm

Rookie
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:33 pm
Location: St. Peters, MO

Re: St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

by KevinRiley2 » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:24 pm

Good for them. And, next time their is expansion, the NFL will expand to St Louis and San Diego - and stay away from Toronto. :thup:
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 7481
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Re: St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

by Mightygoose » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:31 pm

So the city is saying that the league not following their relocation process is a breach of contract. A contract between whom?

The only contract I'm aware of is the lease between the Rams and the city with use of the dome. That lease was on a year to year basis so there was nothing intact.

Did the city sign the NFL relocation policy as a 3rd party? If so then every other city would have too so I highly doubt it.

Can't see this going anywhere. Is it an election year for the city?
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:04 am

Re: St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

by KevinRiley2 » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Mightygoose wrote:So the city is saying that the league not following their relocation process is a breach of contract. A contract between whom?

The only contract I'm aware of is the lease between the Rams and the city with use of the dome. That lease was on a year to year basis so there was nothing intact.

Did the city sign the NFL relocation policy as a 3rd party? If so then every other city would have too so I highly doubt it.

Can't see this going anywhere. Is it an election year for the city?

It will pressure the NFL, if/when they expand, to put ar team in their city. That's okay with me. :thup:
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 7481
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Re: St. Louis sues Rams and NFL

by CFL2USA » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:12 pm

Mightygoose wrote:So the city is saying that the league not following their relocation process is a breach of contract. A contract between whom?

The only contract I'm aware of is the lease between the Rams and the city with use of the dome. That lease was on a year to year basis so there was nothing intact.

Did the city sign the NFL relocation policy as a 3rd party? If so then every other city would have too so I highly doubt it.

Can't see this going anywhere. Is it an election year for the city?


Honestly, I don't think it will go anywhere either. The Rams fulfilled their lease obligation. The guidelines for relocation are just that. I just hope that they can recover the $16M they spent trying to keep the Rams. The NFL encouraged St. Louis to come up with a proposal, citing the guidelines as the reason. They kept saying that "owners can't just move a team because they want to" or "the NFL's main objective is to keep teams in their current market." It's interesting to note that all three teams moved from their markets, so they are 0-3 on that objective. Also, St. Louis, was the only market to come up with a viable stadium proposal as defined by the NFL. There is ample evidence that the NFL and the Rams lied over and over to stadium task force. Whether this breaks any laws remains to be seen. IMHO, Kroenke had every right to move the Rams. It's his team. My beef is with the NFL for encouraging St. Louis to come up with a plan, using the "Guidelines for Relocation" as a basis. After the arbitration process concluded, Kroenke never showed any interest in trying to come up with a stadium plan in St. Louis, unlike the other two owners. A stadium task force was created at direction of the league and they only dealt with the league (the NFL did make the Rams' COO Kevin Demoff attend some of the meetings). They followed the rules that the NFL created, only to find out that they were really only written in pencil.
Rookie
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:33 pm
Location: St. Peters, MO


Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests