The Rams and the NFL have left St. Louis, but their business there is far from over.
The City of St. Louis, the County of St. Louis and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority have sued the NFL and all of its teams (with many owners individually named as defendants) for damages arising from the relocation of the Rams.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the Rams secretly decided to move from St. Louis, that the Rams lied to St. Louis officials regarding the team’s intention to stay in St. Louis, and that the league failed to comply with the terms of its Relocation Policy in allowing the Rams to leave St. Louis.
The lawsuit, at pages 28-30, lists several false statements from Rams owner Stan Kroenke and executive V.P. of football operations Kevin Demoff. For example, Kroenke allegedly said in 2010, “I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis . . . I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I’m stepping up one more time. I’m born and raised in Missouri. . . . People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy.”
Also, after Kroenke bought the land that will become the site of the team’s new stadium in Inglewood, California, Demoff allegedly said that it is “not a piece of land that’s any good for a football stadium,” and that the “size and the shape aren’t good for a football stadium.” Demoff allegedly said at a 2014 fan forum that there was a “one-in-a-million chance” that the Rams would leave St. Louis.
The various plaintiffs contend that extensive actions were taken and significant expenses were incurred in reliance on the statements made by the Rams and the provisions of the Relocation Policy in an effort to develop a new stadium for the Rams in St. Louis.
sounds like a bunch of missed signals and miscommunications, maybe by intent?
then there is this :
Apart from pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the team’s commitment to St. Louis and intended move to Los Angeles, the plaintiffs make this strong claim about the league’s rules regarding franchise relocation: “[T]he Relocation Policy and relocation process are a sham meant to disguise the avarice and anticompetitive nature of the entire proceeding. The Relocation Policy was adopted to avoid antitrust liability by circumscribing the members’ subjective decision-making, but, in reality, the Policy is ignored whenever convenient to pursue a greater profit.”
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
IMO, if St. Louis did have a promise in writing that the Rams would stay, or any kind of current contract that the Rams broke, then they have a shot at winning this. Vague comments stating desire to stay don't mean didly.
Nothing I've read so far makes me believe that St' Louis will win. Despite and public comments, the League and team can easily argue that the city did not negotiate in good faith and that forced their hand to move.
Also not sure how internal league policy towards relocation can be used against the league by an external entity. If I have a policy in my business, I can certainly change that policy, follow it or not follow it at my own discretion.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
interesting read ... looks like they have little chance in beating the NFL, but could win against the Rams owner
there is one part of the story that doesn't surprise me :
Kroenke and his lawyers will explain that these statements are part of the bargaining process that occurs in any relocation controversy. Is there independent evidence that would support St. Louis?
Yes, there are two important and unexpected developments that will help St. Louis in a trial. When the Rams hired Jeff Fisher as head coach in January 2012, the suit points out that Rams officials appear to have told him privately that the team would be moving to L.A. "I was very fortunate to have some options. I decided on Los Angeles or St. Louis at the time knowing that there was going to be a pending move," he said in a news conference in December 2016.
The second unexpected development is based on a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told St. Louis that its demand that the NFL invest $300 million in a new stadium in St. Louis was "fundamentally inconsistent with the NFL's program of stadium financing." Within a month of his statement to St.Louis, however, Goodell was offering $300 million to both San Diego and Oakland as those markets were considering new stadiums. Goodell's actions will allow the St. Louis lawyers to assert that the NFL was conspiring with Kroenke to sabotage any effort in St. Louis to build a new stadium for the Rams.
good ol' Goodell ... the more I read about him, the slimier he seems ...
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
interesting read ... looks like they have little chance in beating the NFL, but could win against the Rams owner
there is one part of the story that doesn't surprise me :
Kroenke and his lawyers will explain that these statements are part of the bargaining process that occurs in any relocation controversy. Is there independent evidence that would support St. Louis?
Yes, there are two important and unexpected developments that will help St. Louis in a trial. When the Rams hired Jeff Fisher as head coach in January 2012, the suit points out that Rams officials appear to have told him privately that the team would be moving to L.A. "I was very fortunate to have some options. I decided on Los Angeles or St. Louis at the time knowing that there was going to be a pending move," he said in a news conference in December 2016.
The second unexpected development is based on a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told St. Louis that its demand that the NFL invest $300 million in a new stadium in St. Louis was "fundamentally inconsistent with the NFL's program of stadium financing." Within a month of his statement to St.Louis, however, Goodell was offering $300 million to both San Diego and Oakland as those markets were considering new stadiums. Goodell's actions will allow the St. Louis lawyers to assert that the NFL was conspiring with Kroenke to sabotage any effort in St. Louis to build a new stadium for the Rams.
good ol' Goodell ... the more I read about him, the slimier he seems ...
definitely shady, but again doubt it would mean much to a legal proceeding. I don't see the "conspiracy" as much as a company simply setting things in place in case the city didn't give them a decent deal. If you are a multi million dollar company that doesn't have alternate plans set, then you look like the Oilers when they moved, and now the Raiders in the midst of their move.
Moving a team isn't as easy as packing up and moving down the road any more. Teams shouldn't be punished for having their contingencies in place.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
