The lawsuit

[LesBaker]

So people bought PSLs blindly?

Sort of. I think they selected seats in the original stadium the based on those locations got assigned seats in the new stadium.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't have a link to the original agreement. I found an article on the Panthers PSL's and I had a law review journal but not specific on the Rams. The Panthers article mentions the Rams are based on the lease so it could mean 30 years or when the lease ends.

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/10965892/

http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law Journal/Archives/Davis_Article.pdf

Thanks Ripper.

Makes sense. Does anyone have anything that says the Rams agreement was either different, was not site specific, or something of the sort? Did the Panthers play in a different venue before BofA stadium was opened?

Sort of. I think they selected seats in the original stadium the based on those locations got assigned seats in the new stadium.

No offense Les - you know I love you long time. Homina homina homina :eek: Do you have anything to back that up? A suit has to have something beside assumptions.

 

[LesBaker]

Thanks Ripper.

Makes sense. Does anyone have anything that says the Rams agreement was either different, was not site specific, or something of the sort? Did the Panthers play in a different venue before BofA stadium was opened?

No offense Les - you know I love you long time. Homina homina homina :eek: Do you have anything to back that up? A suit has to have something beside assumptions.

It was a conversation in STL years ago, the original PSL's "transferred"

What Mac is saying is that if there isn't language in the original contract saying "for this stadium only" then that could heat things up.

 

[RamFan503]

It was a conversation in STL years ago, the original PSL's "transferred"

What Mac is saying is that if there isn't language in the original contract saying "for this stadium only" then that could heat things up.

So you understand why I still want to see the wording - right?

 

[LesBaker]

So you understand why I still want to see the wording - right?

So a convo from 10 or 12 years ago between two drunken Rams fan doesn't meet your high falutin' standards???

Yes I want to see the wording too........you asked about how I heard I answered.

 

[RamFan503]

So a convo from 10 or 12 years ago between two drunken Rams fan doesn't meet your high falutin' standards???

Yes I want to see the wording too........you asked about how I heard I answered.

So now you're going to hold me to shit we talked about when I was in FL? :eek: I deny everything.

 

[LesBaker]

So now you're going to hold me to crap we talked about when I was in FL? :eek: I deny everything.

We have video of that.

Sincerely,

The New England Patriots

 

[jrry32]

Let's say someone purchased PSL's (can someone tell me how much they were or a range I don't know) a few years ago based on what was said by ownership and management, or even a couple of years ago because you felt like things were going in the right direction for the team and you trusted what you wre hearing about staying in STL. And I think it's fair to say there was every indication, in word and deed, the first two years of this ownership and FO that they were going to stay.

Wouldn't you want your money back? If you bought 4 PSL's and spent say 10K for them. I would.

Now if I had purchased PSL's many years ago I wouldn't say I had a right to recompense. But under the circumstances I mention don't you think a case could be made for me?

I fully expect the city/county to request money from Kroenke after they spent 16MIL while he knew they were wasting their time.

@bluecoconuts the only way to get on the NFL's crap list is to stop handing over money. So if STL ponies up for a stadium to get a team all will be forgiven.

Would I want my money back? Sure. But this suit is based on a particular statute and cause of action. Reading Demoff's words, I think it's going to be a tough case to win. The NFL went through this entire process to dot the i's and cross the t's.

That's not the point. A person who bought an PSL initially had the right to purchase a Season ticket to the first game which wasn't in the EJD.

Even as a temporary venue, it means that the PSL was NOT venue specific. Moreover, the language of those initial PSLs did NOT state anything beyond giving PSL owners the right to purchase Season tickets to ALL FUTURE GAMES. No mention of venue is ever mentioned and you know that in the law, if it isn't in the contract, it doesn't exist.

That's not exactly true.

 

[Yamahopper]

I was a original PSL owner.and no they don't transfer to other stadiums or follow the Rams. Good only at the dome for Rams games. This was all explained if you asked when they went on sale.
If Peacock's Palace would have been built New PSL's would have to be purchased for that stadium. A large part of financing for it was the sale or most likely lack of sales.

 

[fancents86]

It wouldn't surprise me if they left loose ends on this. Look at how the NFL fumbled the Ray Rice case, AP case, "Deflategate", and now the concussion scandal. They're getting sloppy.

 

[RamFan503]

I was a original PSL owner.and no they don't transfer to other stadiums or follow the Rams. Good only at the dome for Rams games. This was all explained if you asked when they went on sale.
If Peacock's Palace would have been built New PSL's would have to be purchased for that stadium. A large part of financing for it was the sale or most likely lack of sales.

Wow. Good point. The new stadium relied on PSLs as part of the picture - no? How would they do that and have this suit have merit in the same breath? Are we saying that the new stadium would then be sued in the same manor? Does that add to the cloudy picture of financing? Did the army of attorneys that Stan employs not see this but some PSL holders did? Kinda doubt it.

 

[RamFan503]

It wouldn't surprise me if they left loose ends on this. Look at how the NFL fumbled the Ray Rice case, AP case, "Deflategate", and now the concussion scandal. They're getting sloppy.

The NFL did that. Did a shrewd businessman and all his sports and property attorneys?

 

[RamFan503]

Wow. Good point. The new stadium relied on PSLs as part of the picture - no? How would they do that and have this suit have merit in the same breath? Are we saying that the new stadium would then be sued in the same manor? Does that add to the cloudy picture of financing? Did the army of attorneys that Stan employs not see this but some PSL holders did? Kinda doubt it.

Man @Yamahopper I hope that didn't come off as insensitive. I just am having a hard time with some of these proposed lawsuits and how they would shed toward one side and not the other.

 

[Yamahopper]

Man @Yamahopper I hope that didn't come off as insensitive. I just am having a hard time with some of these proposed lawsuits and how they would shed toward one side and not the other.

Not at all.
The PSL's were a boondoggle from the start. So misunderstood. People thought they had that seat was good for every event at the dome. LoL. People tried to sue over that.....That a person actually owned that seat. Yeah right.

All a PSL was is the right after you purchase the PSL was to buy a season ticket for that seat. Miss a year PSL was gone. You could buy and sell them on the secondary market if club approved but that's about it.
It was a premium to buy season tickets.

The new stadium was said to require new PSL's. I heard Bernie quizzing Peacock on his radio show about it and that was pretty much the answer. The Rams would have some input on it but the project required the money from the sale of close to 60k Psl's.
That was never gonna happen.

If I rem. right the originals PSLs were only good for the life of the lease 30 years.
The new Atlanta stadium psl's are good for 30 years also this kicker, if the stadium goes 300 mil. renovation You Have to buy a new PSL.

While I really hope there's a real legal basis to the suit from what I rem.signing I don't see it.

 

[ChrisW]

The NFL did that. Did a shrewd businessman and all his sports and property attorneys?

Well the league office did encourage STL to spend all that public money to develop the stadium plan only to leave them with zilch in the end.

Where does that lead? Hell if I know. Sue 'em, let's see what happens. If it leads to teams not being able to move like that ever again, then some justice will be done in the name of fandom.

 

[fearsomefour]

The only thing of any interest here is the PSL thing....that will be interesting to follow, to see if anything comes of that.
This particular action is doomed. Total nonsense in fact. The jerk in Fasttimes At Ridgemont High complaining that his breakfast was in fact not the best he had ever had and wanting his money back for his half eaten breakfast has more of a leg to stand on.
Jerseys? Tickets? For what, games you have already attended? The jersey is representation of the jersey worn by a player....it has nothing to do with the city or their agreement.
The corporation they work for said everything was in order, did the Rams do something illegal in how this was handled? Does being willing to put up some of your own money and expecting the city to live up to its end of the deal mean it was done in bad faith?
"Mr. Kroenke , in 2010 you stated you intended to stay in St. Louis?"
"Yes. That was the case in 2010 and I meant it. Per the conditions of the agreement both parties entered into, we could not reach an agreement."
Thrown out.
Do I think Stan wanted to move the team and once he saw the money signs for development in LA he was all but gone, barring a miracle by St. Louis somehow? Yes. Do I think they were blowing smoke for the last 2 years? Yes.
Does this lawsuit represent anything at all except some lawyers trying to get their name in news and collection a huge percentage of any miracle settlement? No.

 

[12intheBox]

The problem is that only those living under a rock would not know this was a distinct possibility. There is still a buyer be ware common sense factor to what is being alleged here.

As far as tickets go, what did the people purchasing them not get exactly? They bought tickets to see an NFL game and they watched an NFL game. The PSLs had - I believe - run their required time line. Season ticket holders generally get first dibs on their seats or any seats that have opened up by people not renewing if it still is that way.

Merchandise? They have the merchandise. What is the actual lost value? Seattle Sonics jerseys sell for more now than they did when the Sonics were in Seattle.

That Stan and KD lied to them? Who exactly lied? Did the CVC lie when they said they would keep the stadium in top tier status? Did the Rams lie when they said they would do everything they could to work out a deal? Was giving up a top tier clause worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the Rams included in that doing everything they could? Or is taking that off the table a non-starter in any negotiations and therefore effectively ending any negotiations? Is Stan supposed to ignore the promises made, negotiated for, and signed onto in order to qualify for doing everything he could? Shouldn't the CVC be named in this suit being that they promised a top tier stadium for the City's team, knowing they weren't going to fulfill that promise? Are they not actually liable in agreeing to the lease, failing on the first time schedule, agreeing to get it done by the second time schedule, not living up to that, then going to agreed upon binding arbitration only to say they wouldn't do what the arbitraters ruled?

Sorry but IMO none of the allegations point to a leg to stand on in a lawsuit.




What legal grounds? I am seriously asking. I'm missing them.

The statute in question can be seen here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/40700000201.html

As I said, a while back I read the PSL language and I don't think there was anything actionable for breach of contract or anything like that - way farther back than that, I held a PSL of my own but I can't say I ever read the thing or relied on any promises made by anyone before buying the thing.

As for the legal grounds that I think may exist here - I think it really comes down to whether the long term location plans of a team are a material fact that a purchaser would consider when buying a ticket or merchandise.

And your point - that they got the ticket, that they still have the merchandise - isn't lost on me - but it's also not what the tort is about.

Had people known the Rams true intentions - and not have been misled by promises made by ownership and their representatives - would they still have bought?

So again, are we talking about misrepresentation of a material fact? After all, the jersey is still good material, still fits. So why are people donating them? Tossing them out? Burning them in some cases?

It's because a team and a city have a tangible bond - they weren't the Rams who played home games in St. Louis, they were the St. Louis Rams. History has shown the league what happens to a fan base when a team leaves. People jump ship. Not everyone - but more than enough for future locale plans to be a material fact.

So, when the Rams were selling season tickets, single game tickets, jerseys, etc - making statements about being committed and wanting to stay in St. Louis and trying to make that happen - when the reality is they wanted to flip to LA and had in fact been working on this move for years - it's misrepresentation in order to induce a purchase.

Most interesting to me is the scope of the discovery on a case like this. If it survives initial motions to dismiss - and it may not for the reasons you stated - then much of the relocation preparation is discoverable in a suit like this. What the Rams knew and did and exactly when they knew and did it is relevant.

This suit becomes a major flashlight.

 

[fearsomefour]

Had people known the Rams true intentions - and not have been misled by promises made by ownership and their representatives - would they still have bought?

Stating intentions....we want to stay in St. Louis....is not a promise. Saying that it is is inflecting comments made by team officials with someone else's wishful thinking and nothing more.

So, if I work at a factory for 10 years, I put a down payment down on a house and I am in a mortgage because the CEO said the company plans on staying in the city I am in forever. Then, a decade later they move the factory to greener pastures, I can sue the company because I decided to buy a house?

So again, are we talking about misrepresentation of a material fact? After all, the jersey is still good material, still fits. So why are people donating them? Tossing them out? Burning them in some cases?

It doesn't matter why people are tossing them. Maybe they feel betrayed, maybe the color faded (lawsuit?), maybe they gained weight. That is their choice.
There will be more than enough to show efforts were made.
I get the reason for the lawsuit, but, it is lame and misguided in my humble opinion.

 

[OC_Ram]

And the damages are?

 

[12intheBox]

Stating intentions....we want to stay in St. Louis....is not a promise. Saying that it is is inflecting comments made by team officials with someone else's wishful thinking and nothing more.

So, if I work at a factory for 10 years, I put a down payment down on a house and I am in a mortgage because the CEO said the company plans on staying in the city I am in forever. Then, a decade later they move the factory to greener pastures, I can sue the company because I decided to buy a house?

A main difference between your analogy and the Rams case is that it was the Rams who sold the goods - the Rams who profited off of them. No one is suing the Rams because they bought a Spaulding Football from a sporting goods store and otherwise wouldn't have.

The point of this law is so that companies can't deceive the public into purchasing their products - and while you may not agree - that's what this suit is about.

It doesn't matter why people are tossing them. Maybe they feel betrayed, maybe the color faded (lawsuit?), maybe they gained weight. That is their choice.
There will be more than enough to show efforts were made.
I get the reason for the lawsuit, but, it is lame and misguided in my humble opinion.

The reason it matters that people are throwing out their stuff is that it shows that when a franchise moves, the stuff loses worth in the eyes of the purchaser. And while you may think this is lame, it's not just a St. Louis and Rams things. Same thing happened in Cleveland, it happened in LA, it happens virtually every time a franchise moves. More to the point, the history of this practice puts owners on notice of how their location affects a fans purchasing preferences.

You and I both know that had the Rams been upfront about their desire to move from the time those desires began (which sounds like 2002 ish but certainly once the ING property was bought) that people would not have given up their $$ for tickets and merch.

This suit says that the Rams knew this and misled STL to induce people to continue to come and spend.

As for the statements themselves - how careful were the Rams in what they said? Is it just puffery or were representations made?

Consider this one from 2012:


View: https://twitter.com/kdemoff/status/160527458809020416