St. Louis lawsuit against NFL going to trial

Good for them!

1 Like

Very, very interesting, I'm sure other pro leagues are going to be following this one very closely. And for sure, good for them, sounds like from reading this article at least the city of St. Louis and their Rams fans got the short end of the deal without a doubt. This doesn't look good for the NFL. But we'll see how this one plays out to be fair.

1 Like

Uh oh. Does this mean the good people of Shreveport and Birmingham will soon be taking the CFL to court? ;D

Don't know the circumstances but somehow I doubt it. :wink:

Not looking good for the NFL.

More stuff:

Monday’s ruling could spark a settlement of the St. Louis relocation case

Interesting article .

I can see them paying a settlement and having them go away instead of opening any books .

You might see the NFL award St. Louis first rights to a future expansion team.

1 Like

That's a possibility for sure to placate their grievances ; if they still want one after all this heartache .

1 Like

Personally, I think that is what St. Louis is angling for, with the settlement amount helping to fund a new stadium.

3 Likes

…the only hiccup to that is an owner, is there one? I have no idea, I’m sure the lineup of rich guys would be a mile long, or they could go community ownership a la Green Bay…

1 Like

I mean the civic leaders from San Diego, Oakland could take notes on this one.

Both city mayors are just as culpable as the NFL in their franchise's relocation.

1 Like

Shreveport DID take the Gliebermans to court (they settled)

Birmingham barely noticed they had a CFL team so I doubt it was an issue

St Louis is puzzling though; they violated the stadium lease, owner used it as an excuse to flee, and now AFTER the fact they trying to take Rams & NFL to court?

I am doubtful they can possibly win a thing... even in lawsuit happy USA....

It might happen but STL needs to open pocket books and build or renovate a stadium first

The lawsuit isn't about the stadium lease. The Rams followed the lease to a tee and even won the arbitration. It is about the relocation guidelines. The NFL told St. Louis that the Rams couldn't just move the team. There are relocation guidelines that have to be followed, that included giving the present city an opportunity to come up with a stadium plan. St. Louis did come up with a plan (the only one of the 3 cities to do that) and began design and land purchases. The new stadium was to be east of the current one and had already sold naming rights to National Car Rental. What St. Louis is trying to prove is that the Rams owner had already been working behind the scenes years before to build a stadium in LA and had no intentions of remaining in St. Louis, thereby circumventing the relocation guidelines. It seems obvious, if the reported information is accurate, that the Rams and the NFL lied to St. Louis about the whole relocation guidelines process even as St. Louis began the process of constructing a new stadium. The question is: was it a billion dollar lie?

1 Like

STL voted against the stadium
They also required something like 600 Million so a 150 million name does not even come close to solving issues

You are commenting they could possibly build a new stadium (lmao) they have not even come close to paying off the OLD one

Couple that with fact city is broke (their credit rating was downgraded as well) and people are so against any tax hikes they have been voting no to purchasing police and fire equipment there was not a snowballs chance in that flaming place they could afford the team

The stadium lease was nonsense from day 1 by a city desperate for NFL

The Rams did not just "suddenly" move the team; they had a 10 year window to correct the issues which the city did not do
A decade is hardly just moving overnight

1 Like

The deal wasn't fair to the city of St. Louis. There was a clause in the contract that the city had to pay for any upgrades to make the dome match other stadiums that are in the top 5 of new additions like scoreboards, increase of luxury suites. New stadiums were going up in other NFL cities.

The Rams' rent for the dome was cheaper than what the XFL's Battlehawks paid to lease the dome. McMahon was supposedly have paid $100,000 per home date over 3 years. McMahon was able to keep all of the ticket revenue while the Dome kept all concession sales.

And St Louis was planning a new stadium by the waterfront with public funds but that wasn't good enough for Kronke. The NFL will settle to keep the other NFL owners that gave their blessing for the move like Jones, Kraft, Mara from opening up their books for audits

1 Like

To illustrate how one sided that lease was there was a clause for hologram
replay screens which haven’t even been invented yet :man_facepalming:t3:

4 Likes

That's in the lease for the Cincinnati Bengals stadium

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/1997/06/09/tidbits.html

But yes, some citiese/counties/states are willing to bend over so much, it's too easy for them to get hosed like this and the St. Louis one that had an easy out clause.....they were still willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to keep them!

1 Like