Rams must provide season tickets or refunds on deposits for St. Louis PSLs, judge rules

[12intheBox]

Of course it will, I'd be shocked if it didn't.

And there are likely plenty of loopholes to get around paying.

Loopholes in a court's judgement? Thats not how things usually work.

He can appeal - which will cost money and potentially muck up his ability to sell seats in LA - or he can settle and put STL in his rearview. Until the judge has decided on what numbers to use for damages - its premature to predict.

 

[snackdaddy]

Both parties would do well to find an amicable settlement agreement. Stan can afford to drag this on for years. I don't know if the PSL holders could. But it could be a PR nightmare. Better for Stan to save face and spend a little money. Try to make it look like you're being generous.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Loopholes in a court's judgement? Thats not how things usually work.

He can appeal - which will cost money and potentially muck up his ability to sell seats in LA - or he can settle and put STL in his rearview. Until the judge has decided on what numbers to use for damages - its premature to predict.

The contracts say they need to take steps or whatever, so they can offer former PSL owners PSL's for the Inglewood stadium, but put extra fees on them that completely price them out. Granted they're not going to do that, but he could if he wanted to prove a point.

I still think it goes higher and likely gets dismissed... Probably scorns the NFL more than anything.

 

[LesBaker]

FYI there is a dedicated Rams fan who posts on the Herd, I've met him and he is a great guy. He flew to many games, he didn't live in STL yet was a season ticket holder.

He's an attorney and posted regarding the language in the contract, now knowing that there are two different contracts that muddies the water a bit but if relocation language is only in the contract from the last several years that tells a judge Kroenke was planning to move and a case can be made that he bilked those fans knowing he was going to leave and screw them over. We already know based on what Demoff and others have said that the move was planned years ago. Borderline fraud possibly? Selling PSL's knowing that person isn't going to have ANY real way to use them within a few years won't sit well with a judge.

George also has emails from his contact in the Rams ticket office that stated he would have the opportunity to keep his PSL if the team moved. Now that's just some guy in the sales office probably saying whatever, but it counts.

The reality of the situation IMO is this.

Kroenke obviously can't have all of the PSL holders in STL keep that right. It would cost him countless millions of dollars at least. Between not being able to sell them himself and STL fans underselling them to get the money back/make a nice profit and fuck Kroenke over it would be a BIG number.

If I was Kroenke (and I'm glad I'm not) or his legal advisor I would settle with the fans who bought PSL's only after I took over full control of the team. That would limit the damage tremendously and create a lot of goodwill. And I would give those people options, like a cash settlement of some kind or say a person has 4 PSL's from the dome then can have the right to 2 in the new stadium. Or significant discounts on PSL's in the new stadium. I'd come up with something and I would do it quick, fast and in a hurry.

Because if it drags on as some posters suggested it will be a bad look for the NFL and Kroenke and my Rams. Plenty of talk radio guys around the country will be commenting on each legal manoeuvre from both sides and discussing the effectiveness of each one. This is the kind of thing that the low brows at ESPN live for.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The problem might be that the NFL doesn't want to set a precedent of this. Similar to them not likely wanting to do so in terms of forcing a team to stay, which explains why they would often become upset when St Louis did things like naming rights. So they may tell Kroenke to fight. The fact the Rams didn't use a few different arguments is a bit telling. It indicates they were always looking ahead to the next step, probably to get a better judge.

I think the NFL will want to fight it.

 

[12intheBox]

The NFL has no fight in this - this is a contract dispute between the Rams and some of their fans. And I don't think we are talking about an extremely large number of fans either - the Rams lawyers dropped the ball on only some of the PSLs that were sold - not all of them.

And c'mon - you don't really think the lawyers intentionally tanked this hearing in order to prevail on appeal, do you? Appeals are usually limited in scope to the issues that were preserved at the trial level - so such a tactic would be incomprehensible.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The NFL has no fight in this - this is a contract dispute between the Rams and some of their fans. And I don't think we are talking about an extremely large number of fans either - the Rams lawyers dropped the ball on only some of the PSLs that were sold - not all of them.

And c'mon - you don't really think the lawyers intentionally tanked this hearing in order to prevail on appeal, do you? Appeals are usually limited in scope to the issues that were preserved at the trial level - so such a tactic would be incomprehensible.

Of course the NFL has a fight in this, if they let that pass what's to stop other fans from doing the same anytime a team wants to move? NFL wants to give themselves maximum flexibility, which is probably why they got upset with the task force, they were trying to limit their flexibility.

Appeals, at least to my understanding, typically need to introduce some new evidence. You can't just say you want a do-over... So the lawyers may have figured with a Missouri judge they're not likely to get a friendly outcome. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but it makes zero sense that they would just leave out a pretty big argument for no reason. I don't think they're that stupid where nobody caught it or thought of it.

 

[12intheBox]

You would be surprised how dumb lawyers can be. And no - appeals usually do not allow anyone to introduce new evidence - they are meant to determine whether the original court erred on a matter of law.

There are certain types of appeals where new evidence can come in - the innocence project for instance - but those are atypical.

And what stops other fans from doing this if another team moves is the contract language. The league is just a collection of 32 businesses who act only where their collective interests are involved. This appears to me to be a Rams only issue. No precedents are being set here - it's a contract dispute.

 

[LesBaker]

The problem might be that the NFL doesn't want to set a precedent of this. Similar to them not likely wanting to do so in terms of forcing a team to stay, which explains why they would often become upset when St Louis did things like naming rights. So they may tell Kroenke to fight. The fact the Rams didn't use a few different arguments is a bit telling. It indicates they were always looking ahead to the next step, probably to get a better judge.

I think the NFL will want to fight it.

Here's the thing blue...........

If the NFL tells Kroenke to fight or he decides on his own it wouldn't be all that hard to find a judge in CA to issue a TRO on PSL's for the new stadium until there is resolution. Stan K has a lot to potentially lose, and if I was advising him I would tell him to eliminate the risk and get resolution as fast as possible. If this gets dragged out or comes back to life when he is ready to launch sales for PSL's it could be an issue. I don't know when he plans to do that but I'm guessing probably soon since he is going to generate more than the 300MIL the 49ers did for their stadium. That's a lot of cheddar to leave in limbo.

I have a saying I use when someone tells me about something they are going to do/try that isn't necessarily the best idea or when someone is talking about something that has the possibility of ending badly. "That's like picking a fight with an old lady. So what if you win. But what if you lose".

I don't think Stan K can take that risk.

 

[RamFan503]

He's an attorney and posted regarding the language in the contract, now knowing that there are two different contracts that muddies the water a bit but if relocation language is only in the contract from the last several years that tells a judge Kroenke was planning to move and a case can be made that he bilked those fans knowing he was going to leave and screw them over.

That seems odd in that the courts apparently ruled that there wasn't language in the contracts issued by the Rams that precluded PSL holder rights for seats in a new venue. The contracts issued by FANS did however. That is actually contrary to what has been reported all along. It was an issue because FANS was not owned by the Rams but hired by the CVC and all proceeds went to the CVC for distribution.

And no - appeals usually do not allow anyone to introduce new evidence - they are meant to determine whether the original court erred on a matter of law.

This is generally correct. Appeals courts rarely rule on anything that has not already been argued in a case.

My thought is that there is a lot of information we still don't know about the case and what the ruling actually means. While attorneys can be incredibly stupid at times, TEAMS of attorneys rarely are. I am guessing there is either an out or a way Stan is going to show satisfaction toward the decision short of issuing PSLs in the new stadium or paying any large sum to the PSL holders. That's just a guess but if Peacock got his stadium plans approved, he would have the same issues and they were quite certain it wasn't going to be a problem.

There's something missing. I will keep a wait and see outlook. Hell - it's not like I was looking forward to buying PSLs anyway.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Hell - it's not like I was looking forward to buying PSLs anyway.

I couldn't afford them anyway... I got my girlfriend to convince her boss to sponsor the Kings and got some suit tickets out of it, so now I gotta get her to convince him to sponsor the Rams so I can get those tickets too.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Here's the thing blue...........

If the NFL tells Kroenke to fight or he decides on his own it wouldn't be all that hard to find a judge in CA to issue a TRO on PSL's for the new stadium until there is resolution. Stan K has a lot to potentially lose, and if I was advising him I would tell him to eliminate the risk and get resolution as fast as possible. If this gets dragged out or comes back to life when he is ready to launch sales for PSL's it could be an issue. I don't know when he plans to do that but I'm guessing probably soon since he is going to generate more than the 300MIL the 49ers did for their stadium. That's a lot of cheddar to leave in limbo.

I have a saying I use when someone tells me about something they are going to do/try that isn't necessarily the best idea or when someone is talking about something that has the possibility of ending badly. "That's like picking a fight with an old lady. So what if you win. But what if you lose".

I don't think Stan K can take that risk.

Isn't Stan the type of guy who's not afraid of a fight though? I mean even when there was talk about him being voted no, a big group of people said that he doesn't back down from court, he doesn't like to lose... So he may be willing to fight it just to fight it.. I don't think it'll affect the PSL for Inglewood at all, especially since he can't sell them yet anyway.

 

[RamFan503]

I couldn't afford them anyway... I got my girlfriend to convince her boss to sponsor the Kings and got some suit tickets out of it, so now I gotta get her to convince him to sponsor the Rams so I can get those tickets too.

That works. I did that with one of my old bosses though it was for Trail Blazer boxes. I only went when the Lakers were in town.

 

[12intheBox]

Isn't Stan the type of guy who's not afraid of a fight though? I mean even when there was talk about him being voted no, a big group of people said that he doesn't back down from court, he doesn't like to lose... So he may be willing to fight it just to fight it.. I don't think it'll affect the PSL for Inglewood at all, especially since he can't sell them yet anyway.

They can start selling them in February of next year. If they decide to fight this - good bet it's still pending then. Btw - at issue are something less than 2000 PSLs - not a lot of money in the large scheme of things.

 

[RamFan503]

Three different parties have sued the Rams regarding the more than 46,000 people who bought PSLs before the team left for Los Angeles in January. Some plaintiffs paid as much as $1,000 for the licenses, which grant the right to buy season tickets.

Btw - at issue are something less than 2000 PSLs - not a lot of money in the large scheme of things.

This is part of the reason I think there is a lot more info, facts, and details than the PD is reporting. I know... SHOCKING!!!

If the former is true, there is a pretty big chunk of change at stake plus what the value of these PSLs in LA vs St Louis. If the latter is true then we are talking almost chump change for the rich and powerful.

 

[12intheBox]

This is part of the reason I think there is a lot more info, facts, and details than the PD is reporting. I know... SHOCKING!!!

Both statements are true - many sued - most PSLs were purchased under the FANS contract - and the FANS group prevailed in court. Other PSLs (a little under 2000) were not sold by FANS and were instead sold directly by the team. And to clarify- FANS doesn't mean fans of the team - it's a corporation that was a sales agent.

Anyway the FANS contracts were well written and the contracts that the Rams used for the direct PSLs were not. So this judge ruled against 44,000 or so PSL holders here and in favor of about 2,000 - those 2,000 bought directly from the Rams and the Rams lawyers did a craptastic job of writing the PSL contracts.

 

[RamFan503]

Both statements are true - many sued - most PSLs were purchased under the FANS contract - and the FANS group prevailed in court. Other PSLs (a little under 2000) were not sold by FANS and were instead sold directly by the team. And to clarify- FANS doesn't mean fans of the team - it's a corporation that was a sales agent.

Anyway the FANS contracts were well written and the contracts that the Rams used for the direct PSLs were not. So this judge ruled against 44,000 or so PSL holders here and in favor of about 2,000 - those 2,000 bought directly from the Rams and the Rams lawyers did a craptastic job of writing the PSL contracts.

Yeah - FANS was a corporation that was responsible for selling the PSLs as part of the agreement to move to the Lou.

I'm still not sure that it is a matter of the FANS, Inc. contracts being well written and others not. It depends on what was being presented in the cases. Apparently the three cases were similar enough that they ended up being combined into one. But also apparently, there are two other cases pending - which would explain attorneys choosing not to argue certain points at this time. The Lawyer's credo: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

Only 2,000 claims are at stake at this point. If the other cases could potentially result in more, the attorneys would be fools to show their hand in this case. Better to get through the other cases then (maybe) use the rulings toward appeal of the others.

We are also assuming that an appeals court will not find that the judge in the case had a bias. IIRR, Limbaugh was involved in some other litigation regarding the Rams and the CVC. Not sure but I seem to recall seeing his name and wondering if he had relation to Rush Limbaugh as he is (again IIRR) from that area. This is just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. I have no idea if this will come up or not.

Interestingly, this article tends to indicate that no one is going to get squat even after the ruling. I never trust anything being spewed by that jackhole Ganis so take it for what it is worth. He's been wrong far more than he's been right. http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-rams-psl-lawsuit-20160922-snap-story.html