HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

OT: City of St Louis suing NFL, teams over relocation of Rams

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2017, 05:50 PM
  #26
Peter Skudra
Nucks fan since '02
 
Peter Skudra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Seattle with JNelson
Country: Greece
Posts: 372
vCash: 50
Even if Woody Johnson agreed to sell the Jets to the Anheuser Busch family, there is no way the NFL would approve of the team leaving New Jersey.

Peter Skudra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2017, 06:45 PM
  #27
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post

The fifth point is tortious interference!

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2017, 08:35 PM
  #28
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The fifth point is tortious interference!
Yup. Because the other Owners (defendants) approved the relocation of the Rams. Those Owners committed tortious interference with St Louis' expected ongoing business relationship with the Rams.

That'll be a fun one for the lawyers to argue.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2017, 10:51 PM
  #29
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 16,182
vCash: 500
If Busch want a team for St.Louis the NFL would accommodate them. But they would accommodate them by immediately pulling the plug on Jacksonville, not the Jets

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2017, 03:12 PM
  #30
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Really?

This isn't hockey we're talking about. The is America's number 1 sport. I think people would not be saying anything if there was a problem.
So there is a different law for different folks, my my how democratic.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2017, 05:48 PM
  #31
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 6,637
vCash: 500
I was under the impression that the St. Louis Rams were free to leave at any time after the 2014 season, when the lease was converted to year-to-year. The standard was that the then-Edward Jones Dome had to be in the top 25 percent of league venues based on certain criteria in the lease, and that was not the case. With what happened just down the road from the stadium a few weeks prior and the stances expressed by players on the roster, any improvements to keep the Rams in St. Louis would have been massively unpopular (The Dome at America's Center, then the Edward Jones Dome, is owned by a Missouri state public authority), and so by then the Rams already had one foot out the door. Kroenke's purchase and demolition of Hollywood Park was basically the final nail in the coffin as at that point, he only needed approval from Inglewood to build (Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park is being built without taxpayer money, but with tax breaks expected).

As for the report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, any competent judge would dismiss all claims when summary judgment is requested, with the NFL likely providing counsel on behalf of its member organizations. The St. Louis Regional Sports Authority is a state public authority...any issues of contract could only have been brought by the state. The city can't bring any claim with standing as they were never a party to the now-terminated lease.

As for a team moving to St. Louis...the Dome could be used on a temporary basis, but a new stadium would need to be built. But where would it be built---in Earth City? One would also still have the ill will between MO Republicans and the NFL on certain political issues to resolve, which I don't think can get resolved. If the Jaguars move, I expect that they would likely go to Oakland if a new stadium agreement can be reached there.


Last edited by aemoreira1981: 04-14-2017 at 05:57 PM. Reason: Talk about the Post-Dispatch story
aemoreira1981 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2017, 08:46 PM
  #32
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Was there ever an active lease at the time the rams moved? If no then the city has no legal claim what so ever.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2017, 11:20 PM
  #33
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 18,361
vCash: 500
$100m in lost revenue? But I thought sports teams didn't bring revenue to cities.

(I'm being facetious. Obviously I know the argument is that revenue doesn't match what cities pay for arenas)

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 12:10 AM
  #34
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I'm curious what contract between St Louis and the Rams/NFL was breached, and how? By all accounts the Rams were on a year to year lease, so they had no contractual obligation to stay. I can't imagine how the NFL would have any legal obligation to the city to enforce any relocation rules absent a lease or other contract?
I think the argument is the NFL told St Louis that if they did certain things like build a new stadium they would be able to keep the Rams. St Louis based on that went out and spent a lot of money acquiring site control, designed a stadium, etc.

aqib is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 07:33 AM
  #35
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 6,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Was there ever an active lease at the time the rams moved? If no then the city has no legal claim what so ever.
There was a lease, but it was negotiated with the state of Missouri.

aemoreira1981 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 10:06 AM
  #36
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
I think the argument is the NFL told St Louis that if they did certain things like build a new stadium they would be able to keep the Rams. St Louis based on that went out and spent a lot of money acquiring site control, designed a stadium, etc.
Verbal agreement or written agreement?

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 11:07 AM
  #37
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
It won't matter anyways. If the City of St. Louis had a case, they'd be suing the Rams only. Instead, they're clutching at straws by suing the NFL for other policies that look like they're covered by the Raiders II suit - the franchise has the sole right to relocate and pay a relocation fee to the league, without needing any kind of league approval.

Of course, I don't expect the league to entertain putting that in their rebuttal brief; the league would never admit they don't have the right to stop relocations.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 04:52 PM
  #38
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
It won't matter anyways. If the City of St. Louis had a case, they'd be suing the Rams only. Instead, they're clutching at straws by suing the NFL for other policies that look like they're covered by the Raiders II suit - the franchise has the sole right to relocate and pay a relocation fee to the league, without needing any kind of league approval.

Of course, I don't expect the league to entertain putting that in their rebuttal brief; the league would never admit they don't have the right to stop relocations.
And those polices are suppose to prove the the NFL intentionally damaged the economy of st louis good grief.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 05:00 PM
  #39
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Verbal agreement or written agreement?
I would assume verbal but you would have to think there were emails or something in writing. It was pretty clear the way the meetings went down that the league wanted the Rams because their stadium proposal in LA was the better one. There was no need to string the city along like that.

aqib is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 05:40 PM
  #40
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
I would assume verbal but you would have to think there were emails or something in writing. It was pretty clear the way the meetings went down that the league wanted the Rams because their stadium proposal in LA was the better one. There was no need to string the city along like that.
If goverment can sue and demand compensation from the NFL. That means if a business moves to the another city that government and sue and force that business to pay compensation.

Its ridiculous. The NFL on the other hand can retaliate and basically blacklist the city from ever getting a NFL team again.

gstommylee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 06:28 PM
  #41
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
If goverment can sue and demand compensation from the NFL. That means if a business moves to the another city that government and sue and force that business to pay compensation.

Its ridiculous. The NFL on the other hand can retaliate and basically blacklist the city from ever getting a NFL team again.
I think the issue is that the NFL gave the city a to-do list to keep the team and the city spent money to accomplish it and still lost the team. As far as being blacklisted goes, I don't see any team on the move anytime soon (other than possibly Jacksonville) and the league isn't expanding so what do they have to lose.

aqib is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 06:56 PM
  #42
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The fifth point is tortious interference!

CasualFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 07:43 PM
  #43
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
... hey, thats my line...


Last edited by Killion: 04-16-2017 at 09:46 AM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 07:49 PM
  #44
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Found the lawsuit. The legal arguments look a little thin to me:
The argument would be a lot stronger if the lawsuit were citing a contract between St Louis and the Rams or NFL where the Rams/NFL did not act in good faith.
Seems like they have an angle to put NFL on an antitrust hook. Pretty good play, IMO. City/County/RSA should get a respectable settlement check out of this. My notes (emphasis added to the hook)

Quote:
RSA - Bonds / fees and expenses
CITY STL - Hotel tax, Gen Rev for expense; collect hotel, tourism, sales
COUNTY STL - Same

Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.10
Missouri Annotated Statute §508.010 harm in MO

A version of the NFL’s Relocation Policy
is attached hereto as Exhibit 1

The Relocation Policy was adopted in response to a Ninth Circuit decision that
upheld a judgment that an NFL relocation decision violated the antitrust statutes

See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, et.
al, 726 F.2d 1381, 1396-97 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Relocation Policy specifically provides that, prior to any relocation, “clubs are obligated to work diligently and in
good faith to obtain and maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that
maximizes fan support in their current home community.” Each club’s primary obligation is to “advance the interests
of the League in its home territory.”


six bullets @ 17

@ 19, 20 - notice : The club also is required to publish the notice of the intent to relocate in newspapers
of general circulation within the club’s community. The NFL also is required to provide copies of
the notice of intent to relocate “to governmental and business representatives … as well as the
stadium authority (if any) in the incumbent community….”

The City and County
both paid 25% of the bond obligations, including millions in maintenance expenses. The City and
County each incurred bond cost obligations of $180 million. The City and County collected hotel
taxes to service their obligations and paid these obligations out of general revenue funds.

@ 23 satisfy "make current" clause

24. In negotiations with the Rams, Plaintiffs agreed to certain team-friendly lease
terms. These terms included providing the Rams parking, 100% of all concession revenues, 75%
of advertising income, and other guarantees. The annual rent was such that the Rams could largely
cover the annual cost of the lease with advertising they sold in the Dome.

@ 35 contravention

@ 37 depos

@ 44 estimate and cap

@ 75 depo (fisher)

CasualFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 01:35 AM
  #45
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Seems like they have an angle to put NFL on an antitrust hook. Pretty good play, IMO. City/County/RSA should get a respectable settlement check out of this. My notes (emphasis added to the hook)
Is there really an antitrust angle? I don't see antitrust mentioned in the suit at all. My simplistic breakdown:

A) Raiders want to relocate.
B) NFL says NO.

Raiders (A) sue NFL (B) under anti-trust laws. Judge rules in favor of Raiders saying NFL cannot arbitrarily block a team from moving--there needs to be a set of standards applied before the NFL can say NO to prevent a team relocation. As a reaction to the loss of that Raiders lawsuit NFL implements their current Relocation Policy. That brings us now to:

A) Rams want to relocate.
B) NFL says YES.
C) St Louis (city/county/RSA) sues NFL because the league didn't use the Relocation Policy to say NO.

The whole point of the Relocation Policy was to give the league a legal foundation where it could say NO without violating antitrust laws--there was never an antitrust issue with saying YES to relocation. How does that NFL option to deny a relocation now turn into an obligation to say NO as St Louis seems to claim?

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 01:29 PM
  #46
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Is there really an antitrust angle? I don't see antitrust mentioned in the suit at all.
We dont seem to read the complaint the same way, which is fine - but antitrust is mentioned about 5 times and appears to me to be the prevailing thrust of the action.

Quote:
The whole point of the Relocation Policy was to give the league a legal foundation where it could say NO without violating antitrust laws--there was never an antitrust issue with saying YES to relocation. How does that NFL option to deny a relocation now turn into an obligation to say NO as St Louis seems to claim?
I'm not sure any of that YES and NO stuff is even a relevant in the instant case. It doesn't matter if the franchise is coming or going, the public entities are arguing that that NFL unlawfully disregarded the Relocation Policy to enrich themselves at the expense of the public entities who relied upon the content of the Relo Policy when they invested in the Dome. Looks like a triable issue to me. The Relo Policy was specifically created to avoid further antitrust liability. The policy provides a process and standards and it must be satisfied for a relocation petition to be approved. St. Louis is saying the Rams failed to follow essentially any element of the Relocation Policy; then the NFL ignored the teams lack of compliance with the policy in approving the move to LA; hence the entire proceeding was anticompetitive in nature.

I do not see any argument in the complaint that the NFL has an obligation to say NO. I see an argument that the NFL has an obligation to follow their Relocation Policy or else be exposed to antitrust liability. It is not that that there needs to be a set of standards applied before the NFL can say NO to prevent a team relocation. There needs to be a set of standards applied before the NFL may render ANY type of decision on a relocation petition. Otherwise, the owners decisions are subjective.

CasualFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2017, 04:15 PM
  #47
Voight
#winning
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gyalchester
Country: United Nations
Posts: 15,851
vCash: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Is there really an antitrust angle? I don't see antitrust mentioned in the suit at all. My simplistic breakdown:

A) Raiders want to relocate.
B) NFL says NO.

Raiders (A) sue NFL (B) under anti-trust laws. Judge rules in favor of Raiders saying NFL cannot arbitrarily block a team from moving--there needs to be a set of standards applied before the NFL can say NO to prevent a team relocation. As a reaction to the loss of that Raiders lawsuit NFL implements their current Relocation Policy. That brings us now to:
Davis Sr was the forefather on this.

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 12:18 AM
  #48
Redgren Grumbholdt
Registered User
 
Redgren Grumbholdt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 4,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davimir Tarablad View Post
With how much the St. Louis area has soured on the NFL, bringing another team in wouldn't be a smart idea.

However, a recent stadium funding proposal for a MLS stadium was voted down by the city residents. If the city wins the lawsuit, the money could very feasibly be put towards that.
I don't think they would have filed this stuff had the soccer stadium funding passed. I think that they said that 5 NFL owners also own MLS teams. It's also pretty telling how weak local leadership is that the city of St Louis and the county can come together on this shaky lawsuit but couldn't collaborate on a relatively small amount for a soccer stadium.

It will be interesting to see if the conflicting statements (alternative facts?) from Goodell/Kroenke/Demoff/Fisher amount to anything in court. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/footb...e6f5804b0.html

Demoff is the one who might have ****ed this up by talking too much, I'm pretty shocked Silent Stan didn't lock that down. In addition Fisher let it drop that he was told about the move when he was hired.

Redgren Grumbholdt is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.