Jump to content

St. Louis sues NFL


bk18

Recommended Posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nfl-lawsuit-idUSKBN17E2D3

 

The city of St. Louis and other regional groups on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the National Football League and all its teams and owners, claiming the league violated its relocation guidelines when it allowed the Rams to leave the Midwest city.

The city, St. Louis County and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, in a lawsuit filed in Circuit Court of St. Louis City, is seeking damages totaling more than $1 billion for the move by the Rams to Los Angeles from Missouri last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of bringing the team (or any team) back. 

The chances of winning this have got to be pretty low.  That being said, if Blitz and Co. can prove the NFL encouraged them to spend that $16 million on design and land assembly for the proposed North Riverfront stadium when they'd already made the decision to move the Rams, that may convince a judge/jury it is fraud. Demoff and others have made some public comments that would seem to indicate the commissioner's office and Kroenke had a plan in place for the move as early as 2012. So....maybe.

I don't see how they can get other damages myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pathetic, you (the city and the region/state) screw things up and throw good money after bad and then want to go ahead and spend even more by paying for a lawsuit to prove you were right in the first place. Great leadership guys, you deserve what you get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Old guy said:

This is pathetic, you (the city and the region/state) screw things up and throw good money after bad and then want to go ahead and spend even more by paying for a lawsuit to prove you were right in the first place. Great leadership guys, you deserve what you get. 

I am a fan of your posts but have you read through the 52 page suit to actually understand why they are doing this and understand their arguments?  Also, what money are they spending?  From the post-dispatch article, "Slay spokeswoman Maggie Crane said both law firms are working on a contingency basis. They will only be paid if they win the suit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Old guy said:

This is pathetic, you (the city and the region/state) screw things up and throw good money after bad and then want to go ahead and spend even more by paying for a lawsuit to prove you were right in the first place. Great leadership guys, you deserve what you get. 

No.  It is brilliant.  I remember reading the Jeff Fisher article where he said that he was excited when taking the job because the team was going to move to LA.  It was most likely a done deal.  Kronke was clearly playing this city.  Even if there is no way to put together a perfect case on the evidence, I would love to see these facts go to a jury, and see what they think.  If the case is here, in St. Louis... well, the NFL got rocked the last time they were in a St. Louis court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys we have the whole spectrum of reactions right in this board, from pathetic to brilliant. And yes I am sure they are going on contingency in this case. So what, they have to spend a lot of time and effort providing the information and testimony necessary for the suit to move forward. A law suit is costly in ways other than money spent on it, you need to designate resources to maintain control over what is going on, provide depositions, etc... Big lawsuits are complex and cost a lot of money in terms of persnnel and hours of effort assigned to it, this is regardless of whether they are on contingency or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can settle for $60 M they should use this sum to repay the debt still owed on the dome  (City, counties, and State) or at least diminish it. Diminish the size and cost of the already existing white elephant instead of building another one. This is particularly true after the MLS statement that we had lost our "bright" opportunity to land a franchise. Who is going to play in the new stadium? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Old guy said:

If they can settle for $60 M they should use this sum to repay the debt still owed on the dome  (City, counties, and State) or at least diminish it. Diminish the size and cost of the already existing white elephant instead of building another one. This is particularly true after the MLS statement that we had lost our "bright" opportunity to land a franchise. Who is going to play in the new stadium? 

You're totally right, and I hope they do get enough to cover some of the debt. I think even $60M is wishful thinking though. I'm also in the camp that totally understands resistance to the new soccer stadium, although I did personally support it. My comment was due in large part to the frustration that without Kroenke and Rams shafting the city of St. Louis, the soccer deal likely would have went through. My reasoning (admittedly problematic logistically) was that if part of Kroenke's sins were atoned for, it would be cool to see the MLS project he indirectly killed get a second chance. 

With regards to the MLS statement and for that matter the statements of the ownership group about "having no plan B", these are things they have to say to maintain the system of public funding for these kind of projects. Both groups have a vested interest in the public thinking that the only way to get a franchise is to involve (their) government money. The MLS2STL group would have to be fools (I do not think they are fools) to have not considered the likelihood of a no vote. Any hint of a backup plan would have completely sunk Prop 2 from the start though. If that group really thinks an MLS franchise in St. Louis is a fantastic now or never investment, they will find a way to build a stadium, and if a fully funded stadium plan appears St. Louis will immediately be back near the top of the list for an MLS expansion team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillsNBrews1818 said:

With regards to the MLS statement and for that matter the statements of the ownership group about "having no plan B", these are things they have to say to maintain the system of public funding for these kind of projects. Both groups have a vested interest in the public thinking that the only way to get a franchise is to involve (their) government money. The MLS2STL group would have to be fools (I do not think they are fools) to have not considered the likelihood of a no vote. Any hint of a backup plan would have completely sunk Prop 2 from the start though. If that group really thinks an MLS franchise in St. Louis is a fantastic now or never investment, they will find a way to build a stadium, and if a fully funded stadium plan appears St. Louis will immediately be back near the top of the list for an MLS expansion team. 

Yeah you'd think so.  Then again,

 

IMG_4848.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...