Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
Bonner89

Off topic: Screw Stan Kroenke

Recommended Posts

A refresher on just some of the things that will likely be brought up in court:

http://insidestl.com/swopes-picks-episode-13/1985238



 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me LOL:



 

This comment underneath it made me ROTFLMAO:

Image result for your honor i object because it's devastating to my case gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 2:27 PM, Bills_06 said:

So Stan and the NFL are appealing this to the Supreme court.  Somebody who knows law more than I do, any chance the Supreme court would actually hear this case?  

Unlikely the US Supreme Court takes this case for 4 reasons:

1.  Sheer numbers.   Every case which is appealed from a decision of the 50 highest courts in our 50 states can and often are appealed to the US Supreme Court.   From the number of cases which are decided by our 50 states, the number of cases the US Supreme Court actually considers is rather small.

2.  Case not over.   Unless there is a significant legal issue in question, the case is not over, Stan the and his co-conspirator Roger Goodell/NFL can still win, so the odds of the US Supreme Court taking a case prior to resolution on the merits is also slim.   No doubt the NFL has allies and will call in its favors, but to decide a case or to decide a case before the trial even happens is also somewhat rare.  What's the irreparable harm a St. Louis jury can make which cannot be set aside later? 

3.   The US Supreme Court likes to take cases which involved a significant federal question (not seeing anything other the NFL and anti-trust laws which aren't supposed to apply - unless the NFL themselves are in violation.

4.   Unequal rulings within the circuit.   Missouri is in the 8th Circuit but the pending lawsuit is in Missouri's state court (not federal district court).   I am not aware of any lawsuit in the 9th Circuit (California) or the 8th Circuit - but if there were, and if there differing rulings, then the US Supreme Court might want to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, slim  chance to get a determination in exchange for a large amount of money spent in filing. I really have no objections to anything that makes them spend large amounts of money, I just want them to spend more.                                                                   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 1:11 PM, Clock_Tower said:

Unlikely the US Supreme Court takes this case for 4 reasons:

1.  Sheer numbers.   Every case which is appealed from a decision of the 50 highest courts in our 50 states can and often are appealed to the US Supreme Court.   From the number of cases which are decided by our 50 states, the number of cases the US Supreme Court actually considers is rather small.

2.  Case not over.   Unless there is a significant legal issue in question, the case is not over, Stan the and his co-conspirator Roger Goodell/NFL can still win, so the odds of the US Supreme Court taking a case prior to resolution on the merits is also slim.   No doubt the NFL has allies and will call in its favors, but to decide a case or to decide a case before the trial even happens is also somewhat rare.  What's the irreparable harm a St. Louis jury can make which cannot be set aside later? 

3.   The US Supreme Court likes to take cases which involved a significant federal question (not seeing anything other the NFL and anti-trust laws which aren't supposed to apply - unless the NFL themselves are in violation.

4.   Unequal rulings within the circuit.   Missouri is in the 8th Circuit but the pending lawsuit is in Missouri's state court (not federal district court).   I am not aware of any lawsuit in the 9th Circuit (California) or the 8th Circuit - but if there were, and if there differing rulings, then the US Supreme Court might want to decide.

I'm not sure how I missed the updates to this thread back in September since I'd jumped in with lots of (long) posts back in January. But found it today and thought I'd jump back in with some new info.

First, here are two more reasons to add to Clock's four that the Supreme Court wouldn't likely hear the appeal:

5. In October, the Supreme Court rejected the stay requested by Kroenke and the defendants. So the case now moves forward. While this doesn't mean the full appeal won't be heard by SCOTUS, it is usually strong indicator that they won't.

6. I'm not a lawyer, but the case seems like fairly simple contract law to me, one highly favoring the plaintiffs, and one the defendants have already lost three times (STL City, MO Court of Appeals, MO Supreme Court.) Defendants argue their lease with the City/County/Dome required disagreements be resolved through binding arbitration (rather than in court.) The plaintiffs argue that binding arbitration only applied while the lease was in force. Once the Rams opted to leave, the contract is no longer valid. Thus the plaintiffs are within their rights to have this settled in court. After denying a stay in October, would SCOTUS really get involved in a fairly straightforward contract dispute?

 

I saw earlier posts discussing the $ in damages in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking $1B+. Per the Washington Post: "The city of St. Louis and other regional entities filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the NFL and all 32 of its teams and owners. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion in damages, claiming the league violated its own relocation policies in approving the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, a decision that inflicted great economic harm on the place the team had called home for 21 years."

Some might argue there's some fluff in the numbers. I've independently learned that, yes, it is realistically in that financial neighborhood. And remember, that doesn't include any punitive damages the jury (in award-happy St. Louis City) may see fit. It's a big number. Blitz is probably investing $15-20M to prosecute the case. And as we know, none of this is recoverable from taxpayers if he loses. 100% contingency. This is a real case. NFL worried. Kroenke, too, since he apparently is paying any financial bill on behalf of the NFL and fellow owners. 

There is additional financial pressure on the Chargers right now. Not selling many PSLs for new LA stadium. Not selling many tickets in the soccer stadium they're playing in. Little support for them in LA. Chargers also not currently contributing to the Rams' construction costs, major irritation to the Rams.

My current questions are: 

  1. was the plaintiffs' original objective primarily financial? say... a $500M-2B settlement?
  2. or primarily a team relocation? (Chargers, for example. Little to no taxpayer cost, and involvement of local ownership... perhaps Blitz, perhaps gvmt as co-owners)
  3. if the answer was "2", given St. Louis has now landed an MLS team, is "1" now the objective?

Finally, I re-read the original lawsuit today and remembered how interesting a read it is. If you liked the insideSTL story/link above, you'll really like reading the lawsuit. Don't be put off by its 52 pages. Almost half are simple listings of the defendants. Here's the link:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/18/b18dd730-f51b-5870-9bb4-09b80c74862c/58ee5c62254f1.pdf.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Adman said:

I'm not sure how I missed the updates to this thread back in September since I'd jumped in with lots of (long) posts back in January. But found it today and thought I'd jump back in with some new info.

First, here are two more reasons to add to Clock's four that the Supreme Court wouldn't likely hear the appeal:

5. In October, the Supreme Court rejected the stay requested by Kroenke and the defendants. So the case now moves forward. While this doesn't mean the full appeal won't be heard by SCOTUS, it is usually strong indicator that they won't.

6. I'm not a lawyer, but the case seems like fairly simple contract law to me, one highly favoring the plaintiffs, and one the defendants have already lost three times (STL City, MO Court of Appeals, MO Supreme Court.) Defendants argue their lease with the City/County/Dome required disagreements be resolved through binding arbitration (rather than in court.) The plaintiffs argue that binding arbitration only applied while the lease was in force. Once the Rams opted to leave, the contract is no longer valid. Thus the plaintiffs are within their rights to have this settled in court. After denying a stay in October, would SCOTUS really get involved in a fairly straightforward contract dispute?

 

I saw earlier posts discussing the $ in damages in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking $1B+. Per the Washington Post: "The city of St. Louis and other regional entities filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the NFL and all 32 of its teams and owners. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion in damages, claiming the league violated its own relocation policies in approving the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, a decision that inflicted great economic harm on the place the team had called home for 21 years."

Some might argue there's some fluff in the numbers. I've independently learned that, yes, it is realistically in that financial neighborhood. And remember, that doesn't include any punitive damages the jury (in award-happy St. Louis City) may see fit. It's a big number. Blitz is probably investing $15-20M to prosecute the case. And as we know, none of this is recoverable from taxpayers if he loses. 100% contingency. This is a real case. NFL worried. Kroenke, too, since he apparently is paying any financial bill on behalf of the NFL and fellow owners. 

There is additional financial pressure on the Chargers right now. Not selling many PSLs for new LA stadium. Not selling many tickets in the soccer stadium they're playing in. Little support for them in LA. Chargers also not currently contributing to the Rams' construction costs, major irritation to the Rams.

My current questions are: 

  1. was the plaintiffs' original objective primarily financial? say... a $500M-2B settlement?
  2. or primarily a team relocation? (Chargers, for example. Little to no taxpayer cost, and involvement of local ownership... perhaps Blitz, perhaps gvmt as co-owners)
  3. if the answer was "2", given St. Louis has now landed an MLS team, is "1" now the objective?

Finally, I re-read the original lawsuit today and remembered how interesting a read it is. If you liked the insideSTL story/link above, you'll really like reading the lawsuit. Don't be put off by its 52 pages. Almost half are simple listings of the defendants. Here's the link:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/18/b18dd730-f51b-5870-9bb4-09b80c74862c/58ee5c62254f1.pdf.pdf

 

 

Thank you for the updates. 

I have felt when I began reading your posts that the cheapest way out for the NFL would be a deal with relocating the Chargers.  For that to work there would be a lot of strings attached.  1) The NFL must make whole all organizations involved in the new stadium to keep the Rams in St.Louis.  I believe that is 16 million.  2) The NFL must pay off the loan amount left on the dome about 100 million.  3) The NFL must pay 250 million on  improvements to the dome.  4) The NFL must agree unconditionally to play in the dome for 30 years.  5) The NFL will not charge a relocation fee.

Money wise this is cheaper than a potential 1 billion dollar settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Thank you for the updates. 

I have felt when I began reading your posts that the cheapest way out for the NFL would be a deal with relocating the Chargers.  For that to work there would be a lot of strings attached.  1) The NFL must make whole all organizations involved in the new stadium to keep the Rams in St.Louis.  I believe that is 16 million.  2) The NFL must pay off the loan amount left on the dome about 100 million.  3) The NFL must pay 250 million on  improvements to the dome.  4) The NFL must agree unconditionally to play in the dome for 30 years.  5) The NFL will not charge a relocation fee.

Money wise this is cheaper than a potential 1 billion dollar settlement.

I think what you say is an attractive solution, however I have no idea whatsoever about what kind of solution will be applied in this case. One thing I know is that Kroenke has lots of money, and the NFL probably has quite a lot as well. I have the feeling that Kroenke is the kind of guy that will continue pursuing his way legally regardless of how much it costs, and way past any settlements negotiated by the NFL and the other parties. In other words, I think it will take some time before it ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want an NFL team. What a piece of shite Jerry Jones is. St. Louis would be stupid to make any deal with the NFL. 

IMO no one in St. Louis should watch the NFL it's akin to paying money to the guy you caught steeling from you. 

Look at what the NFL has done to ex players and what it did with the concussion issue. I won't be surprised if the NFL is fading away in 30 years. Youth participation has gone way down and will continue to go down.  Hell, many ex NFL players say they wouldn't let their kids play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I don't want an NFL team. What a piece of shite Jerry Jones is. St. Louis would be stupid to make any deal with the NFL. 

IMO no one in St. Louis should watch the NFL it's akin to paying money to the guy you caught steeling from you. 

Look at what the NFL has done to ex players and what it did with the concussion issue. I won't be surprised if the NFL is fading away in 30 years. Youth participation has gone way down and will continue to go down.  Hell, many ex NFL players say they wouldn't let their kids play. 

I used to make it to most rams games when I could.  Had red zone, multiple fantasy teams, etc.

i stopping watching the nfl completely when the scrams left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CBFan said:

Thank you for the updates. 

I have felt when I began reading your posts that the cheapest way out for the NFL would be a deal with relocating the Chargers.  For that to work there would be a lot of strings attached.  1) The NFL must make whole all organizations involved in the new stadium to keep the Rams in St.Louis.  I believe that is 16 million.  2) The NFL must pay off the loan amount left on the dome about 100 million.  3) The NFL must pay 250 million on  improvements to the dome.  4) The NFL must agree unconditionally to play in the dome for 30 years.  5) The NFL will not charge a relocation fee.

Money wise this is cheaper than a potential 1 billion dollar settlement.

much of this I agree with. i'd differ in having the NFL pay the complete cost of building the new stadium proposed to the north of the Arch. That was about $1.1B as I recall. The original proposal already had them paying $400-500M (as I recall) utilizing funds from the NFL for new stadium construction and funds directly from Kroenke and the Rams. So another $750M sounds about right. as to 30 year agreement, it would be to play in new stadium - not old dome. and they'd have to agree to local ownership either as 100% owners (or less) with first right of refusal. could be quasi-gvmt -- ala Green Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old guy said:

I think what you say is an attractive solution, however I have no idea whatsoever about what kind of solution will be applied in this case. One thing I know is that Kroenke has lots of money, and the NFL probably has quite a lot as well. I have the feeling that Kroenke is the kind of guy that will continue pursuing his way legally regardless of how much it costs, and way past any settlements negotiated by the NFL and the other parties. In other words, I think it will take some time before it ends.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I don't want an NFL team. What a piece of shite Jerry Jones is. St. Louis would be stupid to make any deal with the NFL. 

IMO no one in St. Louis should watch the NFL it's akin to paying money to the guy you caught steeling from you. 

Look at what the NFL has done to ex players and what it did with the concussion issue. I won't be surprised if the NFL is fading away in 30 years. Youth participation has gone way down and will continue to go down.  Hell, many ex NFL players say they wouldn't let their kids play. 

Your take is really interesting. I've been asking many friends whether they'd welcome NFL back IF at no cost to taxpayers and there was sufficient protection in the lease to prevent what happened from happening again. Some take your position. But most -- especially those who are former season ticket holders -- say yes.

As to why that is, I have a couple thoughts. First, those fans love the game, the league (other than Rams fiasco, and concussions,) the pre-game culture, etc. Second, time heals all wounds. That I agree with. This last summer, when I saw something like 12 straight standing ovations for Albert Pujols throughout his entire at-bats -- once even when the game was on the line and fans were cheering HIM, not the Cardinals -- I suspected an NFL return would be possible if safeguards were established. (By the way, not saying Albert is as bad as Stanley. But Albert was persona non grata in this town for years.)

As to my own position, I have not watched a down of the NFL or clicked on a game story since they left. Agree with you. But if the NFL corrects their wrong (as they did with Cleveland,) I'll be back. And as the largest market (3M+- pop) without an NFL team, it is a matter of pride. Orlando and Sacramento are close in market size, but served by close-by NFL teams. Portland, too.

STL is most definitely a 3-major-sport market. My internal debate is are we a 3.5 sport market with MLS being the .5. So do the plaintiffs want the cash or the team/cash for stadium? The end game.......... must be some interesting conversations going on at City Hall, St. Louis County headquarters and the Dome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Adman said:

Your take is really interesting. I've been asking many friends whether they'd welcome NFL back IF at no cost to taxpayers and there was sufficient protection in the lease to prevent what happened from happening again. Some take your position. But most -- especially those who are former season ticket holders -- say yes.

As to why that is, I have a couple thoughts. First, those fans love the game, the league (other than Rams fiasco, and concussions,) the pre-game culture, etc. Second, time heals all wounds. That I agree with. This last summer, when I saw something like 12 straight standing ovations for Albert Pujols throughout his entire at-bats -- once even when the game was on the line and fans were cheering HIM, not the Cardinals -- I suspected an NFL return would be possible if safeguards were established. (By the way, not saying Albert is as bad as Stanley. But Albert was persona non grata in this town for years.)

As to my own position, I have not watched a down of the NFL or clicked on a game story since they left. Agree with you. But if the NFL corrects their wrong (as they did with Cleveland,) I'll be back. And as the largest market (3M+- pop) without an NFL team, it is a matter of pride. Orlando and Sacramento are close in market size, but served by close-by NFL teams. Portland, too.

STL is most definitely a 3-major-sport market. My internal debate is are we a 3.5 sport market with MLS being the .5. So do the plaintiffs want the cash or the team/cash for stadium? The end game.......... must be some interesting conversations going on at City Hall, St. Louis County headquarters and the Dome.

Is another team actually a possibility or just a dream scenario? Either way I wouldn't go, nor would I watch it. Truth is, I don't miss it, not even a little. 

Next MLS is a major sport and don't be shocked if it passes the NFL over the next quarter to half century. I won't be alive to see it, but it will happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

Is another team actually a possibility or just a dream scenario? Either way I wouldn't go, nor would I watch it. Truth is, I don't miss it, not even a little. 

Next MLS is a major sport and don't be shocked if it passes the NFL over the next quarter to half century. I won't be alive to see it, but it will happen

First I agree with you about your feelings about the NFL I am not interested, however if nothing else is on TV I will put on a game but I never watch an entire game.

The San Diego Charger move is a total fiasco for the NFL.  The Chargers are not selling seats in StanKs new palace he is building.  The Chargers have attendance problems with the 20000 seat soccer stadium they have to play in.  The NFL and StanK have a huge St. Louis problem and St. Louis has an available building to play in.  The only reason I would want the NFL back is to make St. Louis and the group that spent 16 million dollars on an NFL snipe hunt to be whole again.  I know most people do not like the dome but I hope the tax payers can one day get their money's worth out of it and that big building is not an empty St. Louis eye sore that has to be torn down.

The St. Louis Chargers will make the NFL mad for the next 30 years and I would enjoy that.  Our town would be able to hold the NFL hostage for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dlarry said:

I’ll take a Billions dollars over an NFL team. That way we can finally get the Loop Trolley up to speed.

Are you sure a billion would get the Trolley running for more than six months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ideal situation would happen if the NFL settled their portion and left Kroenke holding the bag. After a settlement  by the NFL, the plaintiffs would be facing Kroenke in a more level field, and Kroenke will know it. The law firm handling the case  will not be in danger, on in as much danger, of going bankrupt before Kroenke gives up and settles. This is, of course, if the  City of St. Louis can keep their paws out of the  NFL settlement long enough to obtain Kroenke's settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so there really is still an NFL?   ha.  go figure.   havent watched in a long long time.  just assumed it went away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

so there really is still an NFL?   ha.  go figure.   havent watched in a long long time.  just assumed it went away.

It is, just be patient

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...