New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

The "intervening events" can't refer to a new St. Louis stadium because no stadium (St. Louis, Inglewood, London or Mars) is going to be done before March 31st, 2016. I just wonder if Demoff gave himself an out clause.

No. But an agreement to build a stadium in St Louis could be done by then and could be an intervening event that would give the Rams reason to extend beyond the end date. This intervening event could give cause to extend the Lease to the expected time of a new stadium opening in St Louis. In which case, there is no reason to expect that they would have to wait until a specified date to make this change. The reason for doing this could simply be to set forth the motion of getting butts in seats knowing there is a commitment to play in St Louis beyond the 2015 season. If such a deal was reached, it would behoove the Rams to make it known ASAP and sell as many seats in the dome as possible this season and beyond.

 

[drasconis]

The "intervening events" can't refer to a new St. Louis stadium because no stadium (St. Louis, Inglewood, London or Mars) is going to be done before March 31st, 2016. I just wonder if Demoff gave himself an out clause.

On a side note, man do the Rams have the right to do a lot right now whether the CVC wants to or not... both converting the lease to year by year, and then either extending or ending it. Those are apparently all unilateral rights of the Rams.

Those "intervening events" should be specified to in the orginal document or be based upon standard early lease termination laws/rules/statutes.

As "503" pointed out that could be signing a new lease for the facility. It would also most likely cover catastrophic situations inwhich the facility could not be used (similar for anyone who rents - if you can't use the property you are normally able to escape a lease).

 

[Boffo97]

No. But an agreement to build a stadium in St Louis could be done by then and could be an intervening event that would give the Rams reason to extend beyond the end date. This intervening event could give cause to extend the Lease to the expected time of a new stadium opening in St Louis. In which case, there is no reason to expect that they would have to wait until a specified date to make this change. The reason for doing this could simply be to set forth the motion of getting butts in seats knowing there is a commitment to play in St Louis beyond the 2015 season. If such a deal was reached, it would behoove the Rams to make it known ASAP and sell as many seats in the dome as possible this season and beyond.

But an "intervening event" COULD NOT be something to extend the agreement. The Rams have the unilateral right to extend the agreement year by year as it is up to 2025. So that makes no sense.

It would also most likely cover catastrophic situations inwhich the facility could not be used (similar for anyone who rents - if you can't use the property you are normally able to escape a lease).

That one does make sense.

All I'm trying to say is that while the Rams continued presence in the EJD in 2015 is probable (though hardly desirable for anyone if it's a lame duck year), I don't think it's written in stone.

 

[ChrisW]

But an "intervening event" COULD NOT be something to extend the agreement. The Rams have the unilateral right to extend the agreement year by year as it is up to 2025. So that makes no sense.


That one does make sense.

All I'm trying to say is that while the Rams continued presence in the EJD in 2015 is probable (though hardly desirable for anyone if it's a lame duck year), I don't think it's written in stone.

If you were hoping for LA football in 2015, I'm sorry. They've already begun selling season tickets in the Lou.

 

[mr.stlouis]

So ummm... anything new? By the look of all the redundant comments I'm guessing no. Later

 

[LesBaker]

This one time at band camp..........

 

[Boffo97]

If you were hoping for LA football in 2015, I'm sorry. They've already begun selling season tickets in the Lou.

Honestly, to me at least, that means nothing. Season tickets can always be refunded.

But, I did already point out that a 2015 move is looking more and more improbable by the day. (Although I still don't see who a lame duck 2015 season helps.)

 

[bluecoconuts]

Honestly, to me at least, that means nothing. Season tickets can always be refunded.

But, I did already point out that a 2015 move is looking more and more improbable by the day. (Although I still don't see who a lame duck 2015 season helps.)

Easy, deny deny deny, and then announce and move in a single off season. Not technically a lame duck season, because they haven't announced anything. As long as there is hope, the Rams can string along two cities as they work towards whatever goal they want. Then next year they will either announce a move, and then pack up and go, or stay and get a stadium.

I doubt we'll hear if they are moving or not until next year, and I doubt they move if they don't do it next year.

 

[ChrisW]

Easy, deny deny deny, and then announce and move in a single off season. Not technically a lame duck season, because they haven't announced anything. As long as there is hope, the Rams can string along two cities as they work towards whatever goal they want. Then next year they will either announce a move, and then pack up and go, or stay and get a stadium.

I doubt we'll hear if they are moving or not until next year, and I doubt they move if they don't do it next year.

I think at some point we'll have a more concrete answer. I don't think he'll be able to string along STL without some kind of confirmation either way once the process really gets moving.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think at some point we'll have a more concrete answer. I don't think he'll be able to string along STL without some kind of confirmation either way once the process really gets moving.

If they're goal is to stay, sure then yeah they probably get things started earlier. If its to leave, then doing anything before the season ends will just lose revenue.

 

[drasconis]

But an "intervening event" COULD NOT be something to extend the agreement. The Rams have the unilateral right to extend the agreement year by year as it is up to 2025. So that makes no sense.

Worried we are crossing into hypothetical land here...and to be clear we are talking a highly improbable event, but yes it could be something to extend the agreement. The rams have the unilateral right to extend the agreement year by year through 2025...this is no different than say an aparment renter having the same right...you let the owner know by a specific point each year if you are going to re-up your lease...the owner can't make you stay if you do not choose to re-up.

but a modification to the contract would be an intervening event that could change that (once again this would not happen without both sides agreeing) an example (realize I think none will occur - just pure hypo):
the rams could agree to re-up for a full 5 year period at a different rental rate, not likely to occur but the contract modification would be an "intervening event" that changes rules of the lease. Once again no one can force it on the rams (or the CVC either).

Heck if the rams wanted to (and they don't) they could modify the agreement to use the facility for the next 30 years....giving up their right to go year to year. A party can generally give up a right in a contract modification.

Probably getting to much into contract law and hypotheticals than anything pertinant here. The only possible way I see this clause being activated is if somehow the STL proposal progresses to the point and the Rams are certain they are staying thus both sides would agree to a term matching the construction time of the new stadium. I.e. the rams knowing they are staying sign an agreement to lease the dome for 3-4 yrs while the new staidum is being built. This would probalby be similar to any agreement/contract reached with say the Rose bowl/Colisium if they know they are moving.

Does that happen this year, not sure, it will at some point...at some point both sides will have to show their cards. Ground will need to broken and construction started either place - there will be end....eventually.

 

[Boffo97]

Worried we are crossing into hypothetical land here...and to be clear we are talking a highly improbable event, but yes it could be something to extend the agreement. The rams have the unilateral right to extend the agreement year by year through 2025...this is no different than say an aparment renter having the same right...you let the owner know by a specific point each year if you are going to re-up your lease...the owner can't make you stay if you do not choose to re-up.

but a modification to the contract would be an intervening event that could change that (once again this would not happen without both sides agreeing) an example (realize I think none will occur - just pure hypo):
the rams could agree to re-up for a full 5 year period at a different rental rate, not likely to occur but the contract modification would be an "intervening event" that changes rules of the lease. Once again no one can force it on the rams (or the CVC either).

Heck if the rams wanted to (and they don't) they could modify the agreement to use the facility for the next 30 years....giving up their right to go year to year. A party can generally give up a right in a contract modification.

Probably getting to much into contract law and hypotheticals than anything pertinant here. The only possible way I see this clause being activated is if somehow the STL proposal progresses to the point and the Rams are certain they are staying thus both sides would agree to a term matching the construction time of the new stadium. I.e. the rams knowing they are staying sign an agreement to lease the dome for 3-4 yrs while the new staidum is being built. This would probalby be similar to any agreement/contract reached with say the Rose bowl/Colisium if they know they are moving.

Does that happen this year, not sure, it will at some point...at some point both sides will have to show their cards. Ground will need to broken and construction started either place - there will be end....eventually.

I suppose that's POSSIBLE... but as you say, highly unlikely. Even if the Rams re-upped for the EJD (which they will not), they'd probably let the current year of tenancy end have the new lease take over as of April 1st, 2016.

Also, on a sidenote, Demoff uses the pronoun "its" when talking about the Rams' unilateral right to renew the lease year to year. I guess legally the Rams are a singular entity...

 

[Sum1]

Honestly, to me at least, that means nothing. Season tickets can always be refunded.

But, I did already point out that a 2015 move is looking more and more improbable by the day. (Although I still don't see who a lame duck 2015 season helps.)

Unless you think the Rams are willing to pay St. Louis $250,000 I think it is pretty well determined they are playing the season at the Edward Jones Dome.

When they sent the letter to the CVC I'm sure that was making it official.

 

[Corbin]

Good audio piece....


View: https://soundcloud.com/101sports/is-nfl-supporting-kroenkes-plan-to-move-albert-breer-on-the-topic

 

[Boffo97]

Unless you think the Rams are willing to pay St. Louis $250,000 I think it is pretty well determined they are playing the season at the Edward Jones Dome.

When they sent the letter to the CVC I'm sure that was making it official.

I haven't seen that about the $250,000, but I haven't reviewed the terms in full. Even so, $250K is not much at all to Kroenke.

But, I've said all along in this that it's very likely the Rams are in St. Louis for 2016.

 

[RAMbler]

As the notice from Demoff (Rams) indicates, the "year to year" portion of the new lease will 'begin' on 4/1/15, unless "intervening events" occur. Can "intervening events" come in the form of a follow up letter stating that the Rams have chosen to play the 2015 season at The Rose Bowl, or The Los Angeles Coliseum? By rule, the Rams have until 2/15 to file for re-location. By contract, the 'year to year' lease doesn't go into effect until 4/1/15.

 

[Boffo97]

As the notice from Demoff (Rams) indicates, the "year to year" portion of the new lease will 'begin' on 4/1/15, unless "intervening events" occur. Can "intervening events" come in the form of a follow up letter stating that the Rams have chosen to play the 2015 season at The Rose Bowl, or The Los Angeles Coliseum? By rule, the Rams have until 2/15 to file for re-location. By contract, the 'year to year' lease doesn't go into effect until 4/1/15.

I'm going to only answer one of these three identical questions!

That's the way I read it... others disagree.

When it comes down to it though, Stan's got some good lawyers and more to gain in the fight if it comes to that.

 

[Sum1]

I haven't seen that about the $250,000, but I haven't reviewed the terms in full. Even so, $250K is not much at all to Kroenke.

But, I've said all along in this that it's very likely the Rams are in St. Louis for 2016.

Haha...did he tell you that?

If there is one thing I have learned from working with the Rams the past few years...they don't get into contract situations that they will potentially owe money on that they aren't going to utilize.

 

[RamBill]

Jackie Slater: Fans Would Welcome Rams Back to LA
Mike Florio is joined by Hall of Famer and former Los Angeles Rams offensive tackle Jackie Slater to discuss the possibility of the Rams moving back to LA, his least favorite player to face and more.

Watch Slater Talk Rams

 

[Boffo97]

Haha...did he tell you that?

If there is one thing I have learned from working with the Rams the past few years...they don't get into contract situations that they will potentially owe money on that they aren't going to utilize.

He didn't tell ME anything. He also probably didn't tell you anything either. But this isn't about you or me, is it? My point was merely that if he saw a financial advantage in moving now, $250K would not be much of an obstacle to him.

But, as I've said repeatedly, even though I'm arguing that it's possible that the Rams still *could* move in 2015, I'm admitting it's not likely.