New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

The CVC and the Rams had an agreement. Top 25% and the Rams must fulfill a 30 year commitment. If the building is not in the top 25% they have the right to opt out. Again, not seeing where the CVC "breached" this...the building was ruled not in the top 25% thus the Rams are no longer legally bound to continue on the 30 year lease. The terms of the lease weren't breached, they just went down one path of two previously agreed upon routes.

That was a term of the lease that wasn't fulfilled which by definition is a breach.

 

[8to12]

Do you have the link to those assertions? Do you read the lease for fun and quote that as fact or simply make it up as you go? I am legitimately curious how you are such an expert on breach of contract and terms of the CVC-Rams lease specifically. Can you please post that link or simply state it is your opinion only?

Maybe you quoted the wrong post. Nowhere in the post you replied to does he state, "breach of contract". He stated specifically that, "The lease said they were to pay for upgrades and keep the stadium in the top 25% of the league otherwise the Rams could leave." Are you refuting this?

 

[Sum1]

That was a term of the lease that wasn't fulfilled which by definition is a breach.

The problem with your description on this is that the the Rams deciding to go year-to-year is still legally binding for both parties, according to the contract. The Rams have that option because the agreement of the two parties hasn't been breached. It would be different if the CVC let the building drop out of the top 25% then came back and told the Rams to get out, not living up to their end of the contract of allowing the Rams to go year-to-year.

This is no different than if you leased a home and it said that it was a 10 years lease, however if after 5 years the land lord would have to replace the roof or you had the option of living there the remainder of the five years but only binding a year at a time. The landlord didn't breach the contract, his actions just triggered the option that doesn't keep the full length binding by the renter.

 

[The Ripper]

Who cares about the lease now. It's over but the main point is at this point it wouldn't have been fiscally responsible to complete the upgrades from arbitration.

 

[The Ripper]

The problem with your description on this is that the the Rams deciding to go year-to-year is still legally binding for both parties, according to the contract. The Rams have that option because the agreement of the two parties hasn't been breached. It would be different if the CVC let the building drop out of the top 25% then came back and told the Rams to get out, not living up to their end of the contract of allowing the Rams to go year-to-year.

This is no different than if you leased a home and it said that it was a 10 years lease, however if after 5 years the land lord would have to replace the roof or you had the option of living there the remainder of the five years but only binding a year at a time. The landlord didn't breach the contract, his actions just triggered the option that doesn't keep the full length binding by the renter.

It was required to be maintained as a top tier facility at all times with measuring dates every 10 years.

 

[Hacksaw]

The CVC and the Rams had an agreement. Top 25% and the Rams must fulfill a 30 year commitment. If the building is not in the top 25% they have the right to opt out.

Opt out of what?

/brēCH/ an act of breaking or failing to observe a law, agreement, or code of conduct

breach of contract definition. Failure to live up to the terms of a contract.

The problem with your description on this is that the the Rams deciding to go year-to-year is still legally binding for both parties, according to the contract.

For 1 year,, then thy are free agents again.

 

[iced]

Uh, because Inglewood is already underway, funding is not an issue and Carson is a wet dream looking for a towel.

funding isn't an issue either with Carson - Goldman sachs has already pledged the amount of the stadium, and they still have PSL money they could tap into

 

[iced]

It wasn't just Kroenke that forced his hand. There were rumors that Michael was the one looking at the land in Carson and that there had been issues between the brothers.

Michael?

And no - Spanos has already said had it not been for Kroenke, he would have had another a year to work with SD.

Pretty obviously he forced his hand

 

[Hacksaw]

Michael is Deans younger brother. I never heard of him before Rip brought him up.

 

[The Ripper]

Michael?

And no - Spanos has already said had it not been for Kroenke, he would have had another a year to work with SD.

Pretty obviously he forced his hand

Dean's brother who runs AG Spanos. The Spanos family has been pushing Dean to act for years.

 

[RamFan503]

1. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

The arbitrators decision wan't binding but if not adhered to that is breach of contract allowing the Rams to terminate the lease or go year to year

What Sum is saying and it's true is that the clause made it so that the Rams could opt out if the CVC did not or was unable to keep the dome in the top 25%. If a contract has an option written right into it, it is not breach if one side decides not to spend that money to keep it in the top 25% and therefore allowing the other to go year to year at a specified time.

Both sides made a decision. The CVC decided not to spend the money. Stan decided to use his option to go year to year. If Stan had an actual breach argument, he could have and likely would have sued for somewhere in the neighborhood of triple damages plus.

It was a stupid lease negotiated by a desperate CVC. But no one was in breach unless you consider it breach of common sense.

 

[The Ripper]

What Sum is saying and it's true is that the clause made it so that the Rams could opt out if the CVC did not or was unable to keep the dome in the top 25%. If a contract has an option written right into it, it is not breach if one side decides not to spend that money to keep it in the top 25% and therefore allowing the other to go year to year at a specified time.

Both sides made a decision. The CVC decided not to spend the money. Stan decided to use his option to go year to year. If Stan had an actual breach argument, he could have and likely would have sued for somewhere in the neighborhood of triple damages plus.

It was a stupid lease negotiated by a desperate CVC. But no one was in breach unless you consider it breach of common sense.

That was the case prior to the 2007 amended lease. The only option the Rams had was to sue just like any other tenant. The lease change set up the arbitration process instead of going to court to resolve disputes.

 

[Goose]

What Sum is saying and it's true is that the clause made it so that the Rams could opt out if the CVC did not or was unable to keep the dome in the top 25%. If a contract has an option written right into it, it is not breach if one side decides not to spend that money to keep it in the top 25% and therefore allowing the other to go year to year at a specified time.

Both sides made a decision. The CVC decided not to spend the money. Stan decided to use his option to go year to year. If Stan had an actual breach argument, he could have and likely would have sued for somewhere in the neighborhood of triple damages plus.

It was a stupid lease negotiated by a desperate CVC. But no one was in breach unless you consider it breach of common sense.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Goose]

That was the case prior to the 2007 amended lease. The only option the Rams had was to sue just like any other tenant. The lease change set up the arbitration process instead of going to court to resolve disputes.

Not that I don't believe you. Do you have any documentation to back up this claim? I know that they waived the clause in 2010 but I have not ever heard of the lease being amended. Regardless Sums point is still valid. There was no breach. There was an option that was triggered and it was up to the Rams to trigger it. Obviously they did. That does not mean the contract was breached by the CVC.

 

[The Ripper]

Not that I don't believe you. Do you have any documentation to back up this claim? I know that they waived the clause in 2010 but I have not ever heard of the lease being amended. Regardless Sums point is still valid. There was no breach. There was an option that was triggered and it was up to the Rams to trigger it. Obviously they did. That does not mean the contract was breached by the CVC.

The first is an article goes through the history and the 2nd is the CVC proposal.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_df40eeaa-1321-500b-afd7-c8e543ba797e.html

http://www.stltoday.com/view-a-pdf-...pdf_9733fd6c-4d4f-11e1-bd5e-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[ChrisW]

1. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

The arbitrators decision wan't binding but if not adhered to that is breach of contract allowing the Rams to terminate the lease or go year to year

It's not a breach, it's a trigger. A breach of contract would include lawsuits, which there have been none.

 

[RamFan503]

That was the case prior to the 2007 amended lease. The only option the Rams had was to sue just like any other tenant. The lease change set up the arbitration process instead of going to court to resolve disputes.

The decision to go to the arbitrator was because the two sides couldn't agree on what top 25% meant and would take. That too is in most leases. It's practically boiler plate to have arbitration triggers in a lease. But breach is a specific term. If breach is involved, there is no clause invoked. The tenant in that case would have no obligation to go year to year and have specific time periods to opt out of the lease. Instead, the CVC would be paying Stan at minimum any damages plus any shortfalls in income and expenses he could sue for. But this was an agreed upon condition for locking Stan into the lease, giving him an opt out if it was not met. Completely different story.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I LOVE YOU GUYS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!

 

[RamFan503]

The first is an article goes through the history and the 2nd is the CVC proposal.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_df40eeaa-1321-500b-afd7-c8e543ba797e.html

http://www.stltoday.com/view-a-pdf-of-the-cvc-s-feb-dome-proposal/pdf_9733fd6c-4d4f-11e1-bd5e-001a4bcf6878.html

From the first article:

The changes set the Feb. 1, 2012, deadline for the CVC to give the Rams a preliminary proposal, including a financing plan, for improvements that the CVC "reasonably believes" would give the Dome "top-tier" status.

The Rams have until March 1 to agree to the CVC's proposal. If the team rejects the plan, it must make a counteroffer by May 1.

If the CVC agrees to the counteroffer, it has until June 1 to show in detail how it will pay for the improvements. If the CVC rejects the Rams' plan, the two sides would meet in arbitration.

If they reach an impasse, the lease could be declared void and the Rams would rent the Dome on a season-to-season basis.

Again - these are agreed upon stipulations - not constituting breach if not met.

 

[Angry Ram]

just because a city supports a sports team well doesnt mean thats the only sport that city will support. by that way of thinking LA is a basketball town,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I've seen the baseball town label slapped more on STL than any other city. It's fucking stupid.