Jump to content

Off topic: Screw Stan Kroenke


Bonner89
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been thinking for a while about an interesting strategy for the NFL to resolve this matter.  There is a concept in the law called "mitigation of damages."  It essentially means that if a person who is claiming they are damaged sues, the defendant can argue that they tried to make things right or that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make things right, but that the plaintiff didn't take advantage of that opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff just counted on making a bunch of money in the lawsuit.  The classic law school example is that someone hits your boat.  Your boat slowly sinks over the course of a week.  You could have driven the boat across the marina and had it repaired for $100, but you didn't.  You just let it sink.  The defendant in that situation can successfully argue that it only owes $100, the repair costs, and not the full value of the boat.

I've heard rumors that the NFL offered the St. Louis legal team the Chargers to settle the case.  St. Louis rejected the offer.  Not that I'm cheering for the NFL to get out of this, but I think the NFL, to limit its damages, should just give St. Louis the Chargers.  "Here you go.  The Chargers now play in St. Louis.  You have no choice in the matter.  They are now the St. Louis Chargers."  Spanos can still own the team here.  We had a team with an owner before the dispute.  Now we have a team with an owner after the dispute.  The Chargers would play in the Dome since that is what we had before.  The damages that St. Louis can claim significantly diminish to what we spent to try to keep the Rams.

I know many in St. Louis say that they never want another NFL team, but if the NFL used this strategy, it could, potentially, save itself a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I've been thinking for a while about an interesting strategy for the NFL to resolve this matter.  There is a concept in the law called "mitigation of damages."  It essentially means that if a person who is claiming they are damaged sues, the defendant can argue that they tried to make things right or that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make things right, but that the plaintiff didn't take advantage of that opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff just counted on making a bunch of money in the lawsuit.  The classic law school example is that someone hits your boat.  Your boat slowly sinks over the course of a week.  You could have driven the boat across the marina and had it repaired for $100, but you didn't.  You just let it sink.  The defendant in that situation can successfully argue that it only owes $100, the repair costs, and not the full value of the boat.

I've heard rumors that the NFL offered the St. Louis legal team the Chargers to settle the case.  St. Louis rejected the offer.  Not that I'm cheering for the NFL to get out of this, but I think the NFL, to limit its damages, should just give St. Louis the Chargers.  "Here you go.  The Chargers now play in St. Louis.  You have no choice in the matter.  They are now the St. Louis Chargers."  Spanos can still own the team here.  We had a team with an owner before the dispute.  Now we have a team with an owner after the dispute.  The Chargers would play in the Dome since that is what we had before.  The damages that St. Louis can claim significantly diminish to what we spent to try to keep the Rams.

I know many in St. Louis say that they never want another NFL team, but if the NFL used this strategy, it could, potentially, save itself a lot of money.

The problem with a rumor is that it is just that a rumor.  I get your point in your boat example but I am not sure the rumor regarding the Chargers holds much water.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

The interesting thing I saw in the article is that one owner, his quote via a source, said that they would not have approved the Rams move if Kroenke did not agree to cover the legal fees.  Translation, they knew what they were doing was improper when they were doing it and were counting on a lawsuit.

That’s probably making too large of a jump. They just knew there would be a lawsuit regardless of merit. Any deal of that size will have an indemnification clause to get across the finish line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I've been thinking for a while about an interesting strategy for the NFL to resolve this matter.  There is a concept in the law called "mitigation of damages."  It essentially means that if a person who is claiming they are damaged sues, the defendant can argue that they tried to make things right or that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make things right, but that the plaintiff didn't take advantage of that opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff just counted on making a bunch of money in the lawsuit.  The classic law school example is that someone hits your boat.  Your boat slowly sinks over the course of a week.  You could have driven the boat across the marina and had it repaired for $100, but you didn't.  You just let it sink.  The defendant in that situation can successfully argue that it only owes $100, the repair costs, and not the full value of the boat.

I've heard rumors that the NFL offered the St. Louis legal team the Chargers to settle the case.  St. Louis rejected the offer.  Not that I'm cheering for the NFL to get out of this, but I think the NFL, to limit its damages, should just give St. Louis the Chargers.  "Here you go.  The Chargers now play in St. Louis.  You have no choice in the matter.  They are now the St. Louis Chargers."  Spanos can still own the team here.  We had a team with an owner before the dispute.  Now we have a team with an owner after the dispute.  The Chargers would play in the Dome since that is what we had before.  The damages that St. Louis can claim significantly diminish to what we spent to try to keep the Rams.

I know many in St. Louis say that they never want another NFL team, but if the NFL used this strategy, it could, potentially, save itself a lot of money.

I am not familiar with this concept, but just think if all a pharma company had to do to get out of a lawsuit is cover the medical costs, there wouldn’t be a plaintiffs industry. My guess is that the case law ends pre-lawsuit. Once the suit was filed, mitigation could not be allowed as evidence at the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

I've been thinking for a while about an interesting strategy for the NFL to resolve this matter.  There is a concept in the law called "mitigation of damages."  It essentially means that if a person who is claiming they are damaged sues, the defendant can argue that they tried to make things right or that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make things right, but that the plaintiff didn't take advantage of that opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff just counted on making a bunch of money in the lawsuit.  The classic law school example is that someone hits your boat.  Your boat slowly sinks over the course of a week.  You could have driven the boat across the marina and had it repaired for $100, but you didn't.  You just let it sink.  The defendant in that situation can successfully argue that it only owes $100, the repair costs, and not the full value of the boat.

I've heard rumors that the NFL offered the St. Louis legal team the Chargers to settle the case.  St. Louis rejected the offer.  Not that I'm cheering for the NFL to get out of this, but I think the NFL, to limit its damages, should just give St. Louis the Chargers.  "Here you go.  The Chargers now play in St. Louis.  You have no choice in the matter.  They are now the St. Louis Chargers."  Spanos can still own the team here.  We had a team with an owner before the dispute.  Now we have a team with an owner after the dispute.  The Chargers would play in the Dome since that is what we had before.  The damages that St. Louis can claim significantly diminish to what we spent to try to keep the Rams.

I know many in St. Louis say that they never want another NFL team, but if the NFL used this strategy, it could, potentially, save itself a lot of money.

I read an article about the Chargers and St. Louis.

The Chargers owner said no way to St. Louis and St. Louis probably did not want another crappy owner so I think the feeling was mutual.

I know nothing of the law but I feel what hurts the NFL the most in this case is that the NFL sent a rep to St. Louis to assist on how to keep the team, knowing that was never going to happen.

The plaintiffs spent 16 million dollars on the plan to build the new stadium on the riverfront and the Rams left town violating the relocation agreement because of the new stadium plan.

StanK is upset because the NFL sent a rep that helped the group put together a plan that the plaintiffs pulled off and is the basis for StanK not meeting the relocation rules and it has cost him millions in legal fees.

I hope all of these billionaires eat each other over this.

I hope St. Louis concentrates on making professional soccer big in our town not the NFL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

I've been thinking for a while about an interesting strategy for the NFL to resolve this matter.  There is a concept in the law called "mitigation of damages."  It essentially means that if a person who is claiming they are damaged sues, the defendant can argue that they tried to make things right or that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make things right, but that the plaintiff didn't take advantage of that opportunity.  Instead, the plaintiff just counted on making a bunch of money in the lawsuit.  The classic law school example is that someone hits your boat.  Your boat slowly sinks over the course of a week.  You could have driven the boat across the marina and had it repaired for $100, but you didn't.  You just let it sink.  The defendant in that situation can successfully argue that it only owes $100, the repair costs, and not the full value of the boat.

I've heard rumors that the NFL offered the St. Louis legal team the Chargers to settle the case.  St. Louis rejected the offer.  Not that I'm cheering for the NFL to get out of this, but I think the NFL, to limit its damages, should just give St. Louis the Chargers.  "Here you go.  The Chargers now play in St. Louis.  You have no choice in the matter.  They are now the St. Louis Chargers."  Spanos can still own the team here.  We had a team with an owner before the dispute.  Now we have a team with an owner after the dispute.  The Chargers would play in the Dome since that is what we had before.  The damages that St. Louis can claim significantly diminish to what we spent to try to keep the Rams.

I know many in St. Louis say that they never want another NFL team, but if the NFL used this strategy, it could, potentially, save itself a lot of money.

I think there could easily be an argument that it’s not easy as just giving St. Louis another team as sports are about team loyalties and long developed fandom of a team. In addition the Rams and the NFL has somewhat spoiled the market and turned off many fans. Getting support for the Chargers would be possibly an impossible task. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jonny karate said:

I dont want another nfl but that may be better than giving the city county politicians billions of dollars.  Imagine that. Arent they still trying to figure out what to do with the covid money from the government 

Once again - the money is not going to the politicians.  The CVC will get the bulk of the money in all probability because they suffered the real financial loss.  Will some money end up with politicians dealing with probably from the punitive side of the judgment for both the City and County.  I am someone early in the thread listed the 3 parties suing the NFL so you can go back and look for it if you really want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, almaman said:

they should have to build a new retractible roof see through place and guarantee team for 40 years, then I'll take the Chargers,  always liked the uniform.

8c3605b61be7376c2083e1917f20cd39.jpgt

 

The Chargers baby blues are top 5 uniform in all of sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jonny karate said:

I dont want another nfl but that may be better than giving the city county politicians billions of dollars.  Imagine that. Arent they still trying to figure out what to do with the covid money from the government 

Imagine how awesome the Loop Trolley would be if St. Louis had 2 billion dollars to throw at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the problem with getting another team like the Chargers - I also like the unis - or an expansion team, the NFL will not let a community own another team like in Green Bay anymore so we would always be at the mercy of the owner who may or may not be committed to StL.  Also, the stuff going on now with Kroenke trying to wiggle out of the responsibilities he accepted to get the approval only shows that contracts/agreements don't mean anything to the NFL/owners - see relocation rules debacle.  Finally, how many times do want to keep accepting their apology and promise not to do it again - much like an abused wife does from their abusing husband - leopards do not change their spots.  No thanks I have no interest in getting pissed on again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cheeseman said:

Here is the problem with getting another team like the Chargers - I also like the unis - or an expansion team, the NFL will not let a community own another team like in Green Bay anymore so we would always be at the mercy of the owner who may or may not be committed to StL.  Also, the stuff going on now with Kroenke trying to wiggle out of the responsibilities he accepted to get the approval only shows that contracts/agreements don't mean anything to the NFL/owners - see relocation rules debacle.  Finally, how many times do want to keep accepting their apology and promise not to do it again - much like an abused wife does from their abusing husband - leopards do not change their spots.  No thanks I have no interest in getting pissed on again.

 Not sure I agree. There’s a way for the nfl to sweeten pot to Chargers to sell to local St. Louis interests.

And while they may not like a quasi-Green Bay scenario, when they stare at a judgement in the $2B range multiplied by perhaps 10 when punitive damages are applied by plaintiff happy stl city jury, they may do it anyway.

By the way, just getting the nfl to put a team here in the Dome is WAY undervaluing our ask. It’s that, plus a new stadium, plus some cash.

Dreaming? No. The stakes on this are huge from NFL standpoint if they lose in court. Beyond upwards of $20B, they risk precedent on relocations, PLUS the potential reopening of anti-trust exemptions. They really don’t want that.

Don’t forget: the relocation guidelines created by the NFL - at issue in this case - were expressly written at the direction of the Federal appeals judge at the end of the Al Davis / Oakland Raiders relocation suit. The judge told them you better go write guidelines now to guide relocation behavior between the owners - and between the owners and markets they serve. And if you don’t, he’d haul the NFL and owners back to court to discuss their anti-trust exemptions. 

Oh yeah, there’s the bad PR value on top. Plus the legal fees that keep getting bigger that Stank wants to back out of.

That’s why simply a team WAY undervalues the settlement value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Adman said:

 Not sure I agree. There’s a way for the nfl to sweeten pot to Chargers to sell to local St. Louis interests.

And while they may not like a quasi-Green Bay scenario, when they stare at a judgement in the $2B range multiplied by perhaps 10 when punitive damages are applied by plaintiff happy stl city jury, they may do it anyway.

By the way, just getting the nfl to put a team here in the Dome is WAY undervaluing our ask. It’s that, plus a new stadium, plus some cash.

Dreaming? No. The stakes on this are huge from NFL standpoint if they lose in court. Beyond upwards of $20B, they risk precedent on relocations, PLUS the potential reopening of anti-trust exemptions. They really don’t want that.

Don’t forget: the relocation guidelines created by the NFL - at issue in this case - were expressly written at the direction of the Federal appeals judge at the end of the Al Davis / Oakland Raiders relocation suit. The judge told them you better go write guidelines now to guide relocation behavior between the owners - and between the owners and markets they serve. And if you don’t, he’d haul the NFL and owners back to court to discuss their anti-trust exemptions. 

Oh yeah, there’s the bad PR value on top. Plus the legal fees that keep getting bigger that Stank wants to back out of.

That’s why simply a team WAY undervalues the settlement value.

I did not say  anything about a team being the settlement.  My point was getting a team has lots of issues that may not be worth trying to deal with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cheeseman said:

I did not say  anything about a team being the settlement.  My point was getting a team has lots of issues that may not be worth trying to deal with.  

Yeah. Sorry. Much of my post was responding to various other posts and wasn’t directed to you! Apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that I find interesting is that someone mentioned Kroenke agreed to pay legal fees resulting from the relocation. If this holds, and with the lawyers having gone all the way to the Supreme Court the legal fees alone could possibly come close to the full amount of whatever settlement is agreed upon. This is true particularly if the settlement includes a requirement to pay for both sides legal fees. The lawyers are going to have a very merry Christmas this year just thinking about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I think there could easily be an argument that it’s not easy as just giving St. Louis another team as sports are about team loyalties and long developed fandom of a team. In addition the Rams and the NFL has somewhat spoiled the market and turned off many fans. Getting support for the Chargers would be possibly an impossible task. 
 

Exactly.  If I steal your glass of kool-aid, then piss in the kool-aid pitcher, are you going to be fully satisfied when I offer you a new glass of kool-aid?

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...