Lawsuit between CVC and NFL - Rams Blackballed?

[RamFan503]

This is a suit from years ago that many thought was simply about relocation fees. It's an interesting read and maybe explains some of the team's rough sledding in the Lou.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/1997/10/06/story1.html

 

[PARAM]

Yes it would appear from the onset of luring the Rams, they were in financial trouble. Hey they wanted another NFL team so they did whatever it took to get one. They made some bad decisions from the get go and then appeared to resist going further into debt until it was clear they might lose the team. We won't know what would have happened had they looked at the tea leaves in 2005 and planned for a new stadium and new lease. But that wouldn't have floated well during the housing crisis. The perfect storm brought on by over zealousness, bad planning and a national financial/housing crisis. They did get a Superbowl Championship and TGSOT. Blackballed? I don't know about that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

There has been friction from the get go, I didn't know how far things went back. Now St Louis is trying to get the NFL to pay off the dome... Laughable, given they can have other events there and make money, but still... It kind of looks like the city is tripping itself up here, I don't see how they get much, of anything, from constantly fighting/suing the NFL.. The NFL is probably going to want nothing to do with them soon, regardless of what they can put on the table. Which is a shame.

 

[OldSchool]

There has been friction from the get go, I didn't know how far things went back. Now St Louis is trying to get the NFL to pay off the dome... Laughable, given they can have other events there and make money, but still... It kind of looks like the city is tripping itself up here, I don't see how they get much, of anything, from constantly fighting/suing the NFL.. The NFL is probably going to want nothing to do with them soon, regardless of what they can put on the table. Which is a shame.

They've even said that they make more money off events in the Dome that aren't NFL. Getting the Rams out of the Dome was something they said would make them more profitable.

 

[den-the-coach]

They've even said that they make more money off events in the Dome that aren't NFL. Getting the Rams out of the Dome was something they said would make them more profitable.

 

[Killgasm]

I just don't get how St.Louis is complaining about debt when they were willing to throw $1.1 billion at the Rams a while ago.

 

[badnews]

Let's quit acting surprised that the cvc is suing Kroenke.

It's just what these people do. It's not like Kroenke wouldn't do it if he thought he could squeeze some money out of something....

 

[RamFan503]

Let's quit acting surprised that the cvc is suing Kroenke.

It's just what these people do. It's not like Kroenke wouldn't do it if he thought he could squeeze some money out of something....

The CVC was/is suing the NFL - not Kroenke. The Rams under Georgia/Shaw actually became party to the suit against the NFL. I'm not saying Kroenke wouldn't sue for money. The article talks about a bitter suit worth hundreds of millions of dollars the CVC filed against the NFL that the Rams later joined in. The writer makes the connection between that and possible blackballing by the league. I find that interesting. Don't you?

 

[12intheBox]

millions and millions of dollars on the line - of course there are lawsuits. And there will be more.

This is America, folks. The court room is the 21st century OK Coral - it's where the bullets fly.

Don't feel too sorry for any of the millionaires and billionaires involved here - they all know the landscape. What is sad is when normal people get drawn into the line of fire - when you have an 800 lawyer firm breathing down your neck because you have something they want. And don't be afraid to root for the little guy now and again - even against your own team. When an individual intentionally enters this arena to face off against one of the Titans - and especially when they have solid legal grounds that threaten the ivory towers - the dirtiest tricks in the books come out.

 

[badnews]

The CVC was/is suing the NFL - not Kroenke. The Rams under Georgia/Shaw actually became party to the suit against the NFL. I'm not saying Kroenke wouldn't sue for money. The article talks about a bitter suit worth hundreds of millions of dollars the CVC filed against the NFL that the Rams later joined in. The writer makes the connection between that and possible blackballing by the league. I find that interesting. Don't you?

I do find it interesting, yes.
And you're right, it's the NFL the suit is against.

The point I was trying to make was made much more coherently by @12intheBox

I was just saying that no one should ever be surprised at the CVC filing a lawsuit against the league or Kroenke or visa/versa.
Just business as usual.

 

[den-the-coach]

Again nothing personal here, but I was never a fan of the CVC. Now I will also go on record I don't know that much about the Convention & Visitors Commission, but in the different things that I've read over the years they also seemed to not come off Ram friendly.

They would comment on how much easier it would be to fill the dome if it was not for 10 games a year by the Rams and for these great conventions the CVC could always book, why did they seem always broke? Again just a perception and I do understand the Rams paid cheap rent, but over the years the CVC was not painted in the best light.

 

[badnews]

Again nothing personal here, but I was never a fan of the CVC. Now I will also go on record I don't know that much about the Convention & Visitors Commission, but in the different things that I've read over the years they also seemed to not come off Ram friendly.

They would comment on how much easier it would be to fill the dome if it was not for 10 games a year by the Rams and for these great conventions the CVC could always book, why did they seem always broke? Again just a perception and I do understand the Rams paid cheap rent, but over the years the CVC was not painted in the best light.

Agreed. The CVC has been ridiculous.

 

[RamFan503]

millions and millions of dollars on the line - of course there are lawsuits. And there will be more.

This is America, folks. The court room is the 21st century OK Coral - it's where the bullets fly.

Don't feel too sorry for any of the millionaires and billionaires involved here - they all know the landscape. What is sad is when normal people get drawn into the line of fire - when you have an 800 lawyer firm breathing down your neck because you have something they want. And don't be afraid to root for the little guy now and again - even against your own team. When an individual intentionally enters this arena to face off against one of the Titans - and especially when they have solid legal grounds that threaten the ivory towers - the dirtiest tricks in the books come out.

I don't feel sorry for anyone - nor am I surprised by lawsuits. I am a little surprised that this hasn't really been discussed very much as it very much concerns our Rams, the city, and the situation surrounding the team and the NFL over the years.

 

[RamFan503]

Again nothing personal here, but I was never a fan of the CVC. Now I will also go on record I don't know that much about the Convention & Visitors Commission, but in the different things that I've read over the years they also seemed to not come off Ram friendly.

They would comment on how much easier it would be to fill the dome if it was not for 10 games a year by the Rams and for these great conventions the CVC could always book, why did they seem always broke? Again just a perception and I do understand the Rams paid cheap rent, but over the years the CVC was not painted in the best light.

And while they were doing that, they were suing the NFL and would have been the entity running the new stadium. I just have to think - personally - that the CVC had a huge role in all that has happened and it is not over yet. I suppose we'll see how well they do now that the Rams aren't "destroying their convention business".

Weren't they also responsible for selling the PSLs via Fans Inc.? From all I'm reading, it sounds like Fans Inc is just a corporation formed by the CVC with the charge of bringing the Rams to St Louis. They were ultimately responsible for selling the PSLs as well. So... is the CVC ultimately responsible to the PSL holders? Did the CVC botch the wording of the agreement as well?

Sorry but I have said the CVC had a big part in this whole stadium/relocation issue and the more I am reading lately points to them essentially selling the taxpayers down the road to cover their and the RSA's asses. And they have left a messy trail the entire way.

Here's another interesting article regarding Fans Inc., the CVC:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/1996/11/25/story5.html

Some sections I found interesting and in keeping with what I'm getting at here:

FANS Inc., an acronym for Football At the New Stadium, was formed in 1994 to bring professional football back to St. Louis. The group, led by civic and business leaders, was successful in convincing the then-Los Angeles Rams to move to St. Louis, but only after offering a sweetheart stadium lease and the most lucrative deal in professional sports at the time.

Oversight of FANS Inc. was given to a five-member board, consisting of former Sen. Thomas Eagleton, point man for FANS Inc.; St. Louis County Executive George R. "Buzz" Westfall; John Ross, a county official; Worsham "Chuck" Caldwell, an attorney who has been described as a consultant to St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr.; and Richard Riezman, principal of Riezman & Blitz.

Riezman was lead counsel for the group in talks with Rams officials and his law firm received the lion's share of professional fees paid by FANS Inc.

The $907,990 spent by FANS on administrative expenses includes the $102,077 paid to Zweifel. Zweifel has been chief financial officer of president Casinos since last November. He led the FANS Inc. PSL effort.
"It was my job to set up the office, hire the workers and coordinate the PSL sales effort, including sending out 25,000 letters to those who applied for PSLs," Zweifel said. "I had the financial management, computer and audit background for the job. I didn't see all the bills, like advertising and promotions and others. They didn't go through my office. They went to Riezman & Blitz."

At its peak FANS Inc. employed 25 people. It had as few as three employees in late February and early March 1995 after the NFL owners voted against letting the Rams move, Zweifel said.

The $13.7 million spent by FANS Inc. came from money football fans contributed by buying personal seat licenses (PSLs), which gave buyers the right to buy season tickets to Rams games. The money was funnelled to FANS Inc. through the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission.

The sale of PSLs raised a total of $78 million, said James Pihir, controller for the CVC. The bulk of the PSL money was raised in late 1994, before the Rams officially committed to move here.

At least it seems like Blitz' law firm made out like bandits on the front end and the back end. I wonder how much of the recent $16 million went to their firm.

 

[den-the-coach]

Chairman of the CVC:

 

[bluecoconuts]

At least it seems like Blitz' law firm made out like bandits on the front end and the back end. I wonder how much of the recent $16 million went to their firm.

HOK made 10.5 million, and I'm not sure how, because they didn't do much aside from drawing and rendering... Blitz and two others in his firm billed about 900,000, but I'm not sure if that is each or total... I think each, because otherwise there's about a 3-4 million gap (after 1.3 for land acquisition and 760,000 for some financial lawyers).

 

[RamFan503]

HOK made 10.5 million, and I'm not sure how, because they didn't do much aside from drawing and rendering... Blitz and two others in his firm billed about 900,000, but I'm not sure if that is each or total... I think each, because otherwise there's about a 3-4 million gap (after 1.3 for land acquisition and 760,000 for some financial lawyers).

I'm guessing - just guessing that Blitz got a bit more through dealings with HOK as well.

Regardless, I just don't see how legally the Rams would be on the hook for rebating PSL monies when they didn't have anything to do with selling the original 49,000+ The timeline shows that those PSLs were sold before the Rams even committed to move to the Lou. I just have to think that the suit would follow the entity involved in selling a bill of goods.

 

[LesBaker]

I'm guessing - just guessing that Blitz got a bit more through dealings with HOK as well.

Regardless, I just don't see how legally the Rams would be on the hook for rebating PSL monies when they didn't have anything to do with selling the original 49,000+ The timeline shows that those PSLs were sold before the Rams even committed to move to the Lou. I just have to think that the suit would follow the entity involved in selling a bill of goods.

I wouldn't think they would have to rebate PSL's sold prior to Kroenke taking over. But after that I think a case could be made for sure.

 

[RamFan503]

I wouldn't think they would have to rebate PSL's sold prior to Kroenke taking over. But after that I think a case could be made for sure.

I agree as long as the wording does not specify a stadium or location or something of the sort. From what is being reported, the PSLs actually sold by the Rams do indeed include language that would make them exclusive to the Dome.

 

[RamWoodie]

The trucks have already been leaving...and we know Kroenke "greased the skids" with the other owners. This is a slam dunk...even a lawsuit won't derail the money Stan gets just from the net worth of the Rams in the LA market.

If a lawsuit prevailed Kroenke still makes money.