Jump to content

Off topic: Screw Stan Kroenke


Bonner89

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Adman said:

Old guy,

Sadly, I agree with this. I think he will delay and delay, ringing up the legal bill of the plaintiffs (law firm), etc. There will come a time where push will come to shove and the NFL may put sufficient pressure on him to settle this financially... or enough pressure to get San Diego to move. Doubt seriously it'll ever make a courtroom. But if it does and jury makes a $10-20B award, he'll appeal - again and again. But the possibility of an award in that stratosphere -- in award-happy STL City -- might be the strongest motivator in making a deal.

Plaintiff attorneys are working pro bono  on a contingency fee. They only get paid if they win/settle. This allows the plaintiff to take away Kroenke's leverage. He is notorious for stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money. Can't do that here.

Now, if this does go to court and Kroenke is successful I'm not sure who pays the legal bills. I'm not worried about this possibility because I know Kroenke and the NFL are f**ked.

As for my unsolicited opinion, I don't settle for anything less than $1B. Use a portion of that money to pay of Dome debt and upgrade the convention center to rival Nashville's new(er) convention center. Year-round conventions bring money to STL coffers. 8-10 football games a year do not.

CBFan, dlarry and TheChosenOne like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Plaintiff attorneys are working pro bono. They only get paid if they win/settle. This allows the plaintiff to take away Kroenke's leverage. He is notorious for stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money. Can't do that here.

Now, if this does go to court and Kroenke is successful I'm not sure who pays the legal bills. I'm not worried about this possibility because I know Kroenke and the NFL are f**ked.

As for my unsolicited opinion, I don't settle for anything less than $1B. Use a portion of that money to pay of Dome debt and upgrade the convention center to rival Nashville's new(er) convention center. Year-round conventions bring money to STL coffers. 8-10 football games a year do not.

They are not working pro bono. They are working on a contingency fee. They get paid a percentage of what they collect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, kmbilliken said:

They are not working pro bono. They are working on a contingency fee. They get paid a percentage of what they collect. 

Edited. My legalese is poor. I had a feeling pro bono wasn't the correct term but the point remains; they only get paid if they win. Kroenke can't bleed them dry with continuance after continuance (correct term?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Plaintiff attorneys are working pro bono  on a contingency fee. They only get paid if they win/settle. This allows the plaintiff to take away Kroenke's leverage. He is notorious for stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money. Can't do that here.

Now, if this does go to court and Kroenke is successful I'm not sure who pays the legal bills. I'm not worried about this possibility because I know Kroenke and the NFL are f**ked.

As for my unsolicited opinion, I don't settle for anything less than $1B. Use a portion of that money to pay of Dome debt and upgrade the convention center to rival Nashville's new(er) convention center. Year-round conventions bring money to STL coffers. 8-10 football games a year do not.

Surely you realize that handling a case like this costs money, lots of money. I am pretty sure that Kroenke has a lot more money at his disposal than any litigation firm in St. Louis. It is simple, if the firm goes bankrupt pursuing this case, Kroenke wins. They need to get a good infusion of funds to be able to take Kroenke to settle.  I am pretty sure Kroenke knows that.

I am not trying to put you down, but legal action requires money, a lot of money in some cases. A contingency case is, to some degree, a gamble. The litigation firm bets that they can get a settlement or a trial decision in their client's favor before they run out of funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Surely you realize that handling a case like this costs money, lots of money. I am pretty sure that Kroenke has a lot more money at his disposal than any litigation firm in St. Louis. It is simple, if the firm goes bankrupt pursuing this case, Kroenke wins. They need to get a good infusion of funds to be able to take Kroenke to settle.  I am pretty sure Kroenke knows that.

I am not trying to put you down, but legal action requires money, a lot of money in some cases. A contingency case is, to some degree, a gamble. The litigation firm bets that they can get a settlement or a trial decision in their client's favor before they run out of funds.

Surely you realize these are sophisticated, well-established law firms that took on this case. And that the idea they would pursue this to the point of bankruptcy is laughable.  Plaintiff attorneys took this case knowing the odds were in their favor. They knew the mountains of evidence the city, county, and RSA had prior to taking this case. Sure, there is always the risk they won't win but the odds are highly in their favor.

As kmbilliken clarified, these attorneys are working on a contingency basis. For reference, here is the definition from ABA's website:

A client pays a contingent fees to a lawyer only if the lawyer handles a case successfully. Lawyers and clients use this arrangement only in cases where money is being claimed—most often in cases involving personal injury or workers' compensation.

In a contingent fee arrangement, the lawyer agrees to accept a fixed percentage (often one third) of the recovery, which is the amount finally paid to the client. If you win the case, the lawyer's fee comes out of the money awarded to you. If you lose, neither you nor the lawyer will get any money, but you will not be required to pay your attorney for the work done on the case.

Care to place a friendly wager on the outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Surely you realize these are sophisticated, well-established law firms that took on this case. And that the idea they would pursue this to the point of bankruptcy is laughable.  Plaintiff attorneys took this case knowing the odds were in their favor. They knew the mountains of evidence the city, county, and RSA had prior to taking this case. Sure, there is always the risk they won't win but the odds are highly in their favor.

Care to place a friendly wager on the outcome?

Something that many may not know is that there are Hedge Funds and Venture Capitalists who often fund these types of law suits for a % of the money won.  I would be shocked if the local law firms are not being backed this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cheeseman said:

Something that many may not know is that there are Hedge Funds and Venture Capitalists who often fund these types of law suits for a % of the money won.  I would be shocked if the local law firms are not being backed this way.

Interesting.

Perhaps an attorney can jump in here and clarify but if an attorney chooses to take on a case on a contingency basis, how would that expose his/her law firm to potential bankruptcy?  If I work for ABC law firm and decide to use my time to review and argue a case on a contingency basis, the only valuable resource of the firms I am taking is a portion of my time. Lawyers work on multiple cases at the same time so these guys are still generating billable hours on other cases. I think we all understand that if they win, the firm benefits greatly. But if they lose, how exactly does that hurt the law firm? Old guy, surely you don't think these attorneys are spending 40 hours a week on this case, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-if the settlement is $30mil, the law firm gets $10mil, that equals 10 lawyers working 2,000 hours and billing at $500 per hour, the settlement should be many times that so I think the law firm or their backers made a good bet, or at least I sure hope they did as I am a backer of the thread title

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

Something that many may not know is that there are Hedge Funds and Venture Capitalists who often fund these types of law suits for a % of the money won.  I would be shocked if the local law firms are not being backed this way.

The firm handling this has also partnered with another firm to assist and offset some of their exposure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cheeseman said:

Are you sure that the NFL and Kroenke lawsuits are tied together?  I think they may be separate but Kroenke has a responsibility to cover some expenses in both.  Kroenke may not be able to stop the NFL from settling perhaps.

Yes, it is a single lawsuit. The NFL itself, the other 31 teams and their respective owners. Roughly 63 defendants. You can read the list of names in the link I posted above.

As to whether the plaintiffs can settle separately/individually with team entities, respective owners and the NFL itself, and if so, whether that’s a smart strategy is way beyond my pay grade. My gut says not to settle separately, that greater leverage is achieved by holding everyone’s feet to the fire. But the attys on the this board will know way more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Plaintiff attorneys are working pro bono  on a contingency fee. They only get paid if they win/settle. This allows the plaintiff to take away Kroenke's leverage. He is notorious for stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money. Can't do that here.

Now, if this does go to court and Kroenke is successful I'm not sure who pays the legal bills. I'm not worried about this possibility because I know Kroenke and the NFL are f**ked.

As for my unsolicited opinion, I don't settle for anything less than $1B. Use a portion of that money to pay of Dome debt and upgrade the convention center to rival Nashville's new(er) convention center. Year-round conventions bring money to STL coffers. 8-10 football games a year do not.

Agree with everything here except Kroenke not being able to stall until plaintiff runs out of money. Since attorney Bob Blitz is working 100% on contingency, he is self-financing the prosecution of this case, and will likely end up spending $15-20M doing so. How he is doing this is unknown (law firm coffers, personal funds, bank loans, etc.) Kroenke’s pocketbook is way, way deeper. 
 

Not saying Blitz can’t get additional funding to stay in game if Kroenke plays the stall game. But the stakes for him - already high - would get higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cheeseman said:

Something that many may not know is that there are Hedge Funds and Venture Capitalists who often fund these types of law suits for a % of the money won.  I would be shocked if the local law firms are not being backed this way.

Sorry, am on phone, didn’t see this and the following couple of posts when I just posted a moment ago. Your suggestion of outside fund companies possibly helping to finance the suit for % of deal is good. Thanks a lot. 

My point is still the same: the financing - however financed - is not unlimited if Kroenke plays the stall game. It’s a game of chicken.
 

Agree it’s a good bet though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slu let the dogs out, neither of us has any access to  the finances of any of the law firms anywhere. So, I think we are better served by leaving this discussion as is at this point. We agree to disagree in this one.

I do not bet anywhere but in the market.

My name here is Old Guy, not old man, although I happen to be an old man also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adman said:

Agree with everything here except Kroenke not being able to stall until plaintiff runs out of money. Since attorney Bob Blitz is working 100% on contingency, he is self-financing the prosecution of this case, and will likely end up spending $15-20M doing so. How he is doing this is unknown (law firm coffers, personal funds, bank loans, etc.) Kroenke’s pocketbook is way, way deeper. 
 

Not saying Blitz can’t get additional funding to stay in game if Kroenke plays the stall game. But the stakes for him - already high - would get higher.

Makes sense, Adman. Question: Is there not a point in these situations in which the plaintiff stops incurring expenses? At least rather large  ones? I'd imagine the money needed to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc. would mostly be done by now. The fact that they are just waiting on Kroenke's SC appeal....would that not mean they are just waiting? What significant costs could they possibly be incurring? On the other hand if your sourcing of funds comes from loans, etc. you may have no choice to settle if the term of your loan is coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Slu let the dogs out, neither of us has any access to  the finances of any of the law firms anywhere. So, I think we are better served by leaving this discussion as is at this point. We agree to disagree in this one.

I do not bet anywhere but in the market.

My name here is Old Guy, not old man, although I happen to be an old man also.

No you are right. No one has infinite resources, including Bob Blitz. I guess what I meant to say is the the attorneys working on this case have the resources to fight this thing a lot longer than the average Jose. 

Ha sorry about that. I was typing fast and didn't even notice I typed "man" instead of "guy". I will revise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kroenke doesn’t have the ability to stall the suit forever. The trial judge can set a trial date and enforce. Kroenke can appeal the trial court decision, but the appellate court will then set the schedule. This case will come to an end at some point. I would bet the end would be within 3 years even with an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Makes sense, Adman. Question: Is there not a point in these situations in which the plaintiff stops incurring expenses? At least rather large  ones? I'd imagine the money needed to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc. would mostly be done by now. The fact that they are just waiting on Kroenke's SC appeal....would that not mean they are just waiting? What significant costs could they possibly be incurring? On the other hand if your sourcing of funds comes from loans, etc. you may have no choice to settle if the term of your loan is coming up.

First, I’m not a lawyer. The attys on this Board will have much better opinions on your questions. But I’ll add a few things.

Have no idea what work has been accomplished by Blitz’ team. But the case is no longer on hold. Because SCOTUS denied the stay, it moves forward. It might get delayed again if SCOTUS decides to hear the case, but for the many reasons explained earlier in this post, not likely.

As I understand it, they have completed the pleadings phase (the defendants have lost all rounds,) and should be somewhere in the discovery phase. I would think discovery (and trial, if it happens) would be where most of the heavy lifting and costs occur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Adman said:

First, I’m not a lawyer. The attys on this Board will have much better opinions on your questions. But I’ll add a few things.

Have no idea what work has been accomplished by Blitz’ team. But the case is no longer on hold. Because SCOTUS denied the stay, it moves forward. It might get delayed again if SCOTUS decides to hear the case, but for the many reasons explained earlier in this post, not likely.

As I understand it, they have completed the pleadings phase (the defendants have lost all rounds,) and should be somewhere in the discovery phase. I would think discovery (and trial, if it happens) would be where most of the heavy lifting and costs occur. 

As I understand it, the only matter litigated thus far is whether the case should be arbitrated or go to court.  Usually, the case is on hold until the arbitration question is determined because you need to know if the Judge or arbitrator(s) will hear it and decide motions,etc.  Rams/NFL want arbitration because it is private and does not allow the Plaintiffs to do extensive discovery - theoretically the Plaintiffs could depose every owner about the relocation process.  If arbitration question is decided, the parties will now move into a pleading phase where the Rams, among many other possibilities, may seek to have the case moved out of the city or to have all or part of the case dismissed.  These cases get expensive for Plaintiff's lawyers because the lawyers front all of the costs including lawyers salaries, paralegal salaries, experts, investigators, depositions, etc and can only recoup those costs if they win.  I don't think Blitz's firm will have a problem but small or solo firms that heavily invest in the "Big Case" that ends up a loser often do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, this will be settled for some astronomical number in order to avoid the extensive pre-trial discovery process and to keep Kroenke, Demoff, Goodell, and Jerry Jones, et al from being deposed under oath.

re: the Chargers

My read is that some in the NFL power structure have "workshopped" the idea of sending the Chargers to STL as part of the settlement (kill 2 birds with 1 stone), but that's unlikely to happen based on Dean Spanos recent comments and also the fact that there's really no money for a new stadium which the deal would hinge on (even when the lawsuit windfall comes, I doubt that money would go to a new stadium).

crymdg2 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kmbilliken said:

Kroenke doesn’t have the ability to stall the suit forever. The trial judge can set a trial date and enforce. Kroenke can appeal the trial court decision, but the appellate court will then set the schedule. This case will come to an end at some point. I would bet the end would be within 3 years even with an appeal.

I guess this is why I was saying Kroenke's typical litigation strategy likely won't work here: Biltz and co. have more resources than your average plaintiff team. That, coupled with the fact that you can't just stall indefinitely would lead me to believe they have the ability to weather this storm but who knows.... based on yours and other informative responses in this thread I clearly don't know much about this process. 

 

10 hours ago, Adman said:

First, I’m not a lawyer. The attys on this Board will have much better opinions on your questions. But I’ll add a few things.

Have no idea what work has been accomplished by Blitz’ team. But the case is no longer on hold. Because SCOTUS denied the stay, it moves forward. It might get delayed again if SCOTUS decides to hear the case, but for the many reasons explained earlier in this post, not likely.

As I understand it, they have completed the pleadings phase (the defendants have lost all rounds,) and should be somewhere in the discovery phase. I would think discovery (and trial, if it happens) would be where most of the heavy lifting and costs occur. 

Thanks, Adman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kroenke doesn't have the ability to stall forever.  A large part of Kroenke's billions aren't liquid.  The stadium in LA is eating up a large chunk of his cash flow right now.  90%+ of Kroenke's net worth comes from his ownership of sports teams and sports venues. You just can't sell one of those on short notice to fund a lawsuit.  

Kroenke can only spend and leverage himself so much. The NFL a year ago had to raise the debt limit for the Rams to $2.25 billion.  Stan is franchise rich, but cash poor.

SLU_Lax likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Duff Man said:

If I had to guess, this will be settled for some astronomical number in order to avoid the extensive pre-trial discovery process and to keep Kroenke, Demoff, Goodell, and Jerry Jones, et al from being deposed under oath.

re: the Chargers

My read is that some in the NFL power structure have "workshopped" the idea of sending the Chargers to STL as part of the settlement (kill 2 birds with 1 stone), but that's unlikely to happen based on Dean Spanos recent comments and also the fact that there's really no money for a new stadium which the deal would hinge on (even when the lawsuit windfall comes, I doubt that money would go to a new stadium).

Agree this will be settled. No way it ends up in court. The number should be large. 
 

As to money for new stadium, disagree. The NFL already has an ongoing $250M fund for new stadium construction. Kroenke has plenty to cover the balance. When compared to the possible cost of jury award — particularly with 10-figure punitive award tacked on — they’ll find the dough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Duff Man said:

re: the Chargers

My read is that some in the NFL power structure have "workshopped" the idea of sending the Chargers to STL as part of the settlement (kill 2 birds with 1 stone), but that's unlikely to happen based on Dean Spanos recent comments and also the fact that there's really no money for a new stadium which the deal would hinge on (even when the lawsuit windfall comes, I doubt that money would go to a new stadium).

Duffman, sorry meant to also address your last phrase.

Whether plaintiffs would want money for new stadium is a good question. If their true objective is a team vs cash, then yes they would use money for stadium and likely negotiate more cash for other purposes.

Trying to learn the plaintiffs’ true objectives is my #1 question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Billfan7 said:

As I understand it, the only matter litigated thus far is whether the case should be arbitrated or go to court.  Usually, the case is on hold until the arbitration question is determined because you need to know if the Judge or arbitrator(s) will hear it and decide motions,etc.  Rams/NFL want arbitration because it is private and does not allow the Plaintiffs to do extensive discovery - theoretically the Plaintiffs could depose every owner about the relocation process.  If arbitration question is decided, the parties will now move into a pleading phase where the Rams, among many other possibilities, may seek to have the case moved out of the city or to have all or part of the case dismissed.  These cases get expensive for Plaintiff's lawyers because the lawyers front all of the costs including lawyers salaries, paralegal salaries, experts, investigators, depositions, etc and can only recoup those costs if they win.  I don't think Blitz's firm will have a problem but small or solo firms that heavily invest in the "Big Case" that ends up a loser often do.

Thanks for your excellent input.

One correction. There are two other pleadings (beyond binding arbitration) that have been settled. The defendants initially plead to have the suit thrown out for lack of merit (or similar.) Judge rejected this. Then defendants plead for a change in venue from STL City. Again, judge rejected. I believe one or both of these pleadings were appealed to State of Missouri and rejected.

There may have been a third pleading (memory escapes me) with mixed decision from judge. Bottom line: the defendants have lost time and time again, including recent SCOTUS rejection of the stay. It’s time for this to get interesting.

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...