The lawsuit

[12intheBox]

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2016/01/13/st-louis-fans-sue-rams-alleging-deception.html


Didn't take long. I hope they win.

 

[12intheBox]

Well, maybe not THE lawsuit - that one would come from the city / state if it comes.

But I like lawsuits - and while the damages are smaller here - I like this one.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't see that sticking, but I see that ensuring getting put on the NFL shitlist.

 

[Raptorman]

Won't work. The only people who will make money off of it are the attorney's.

 

[Yamahopper]

Waste of time by the buthurt faction.

 

[12intheBox]

I don't know, you guys. It may seem like sour grapes - and I'm sure a lot of it is - but there are legal grounds here.

When a business is selling you something - the things they say in order to sell you those things matter. We want them to matter. We want to hold businesses accountable for misleading sales pitches.

The rich and powerful are getting a bit too rich and way too powerful for my taste. They own politics, they own what used to be information, and generally - they can whip just about anyone they want to in the legal world - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting up a fight where we can.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know, you guys. It may seem like sour grapes - and I'm sure a lot of it is - but there are legal grounds here.

When a business is selling you something - the things they say in order to sell you those things matter. We want them to matter. We want to hold businesses accountable for misleading sales pitches.

The rich and powerful are getting a bit too rich and way too powerful for my taste. They own politics, they own what used to be information, and generally - they can whip just about anyone they want to in the legal world - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting up a fight where we can.

The problem I envision for a lawsuit like this is that the NFL is a multibillion dollar per year industry, they will buy some of, if not the, best lawyers money can buy.

Secondly, if the lawsuit is about false hope, then the Rams could flip it, and include the Missouri Gov, St Louis Mayor, the task force, and all the media writers and talking heads as well. The Rams told them they weren't interested in saying, the media, task force, and government turned and told the fans they were confident, that they thought the NFL would block the Rams from moving, that the stadium deal was good enough even after the NFL said it wasn't. Seems easy for the NFL to flip that around, and I'm obviously not a lawyer.

I don't think it really goes anywhere, I'd be shocked if it even gets picked up. Similar to the Missouri Senator who threatened anti-trust suits, he's gotta convince 99 others to follow up, and quite a few would be going against their NFL teams, for what? There's gonna be a lot of saber rattling from people looking to sue and get revenge, but I don't see any of it going anywhere. If it does go somewhere, the NFL probably wins and then crosses off St Louis as possible locations for relocating or expansion. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[jrry32]

I don't know, you guys. It may seem like sour grapes - and I'm sure a lot of it is - but there are legal grounds here.

When a business is selling you something - the things they say in order to sell you those things matter. We want them to matter. We want to hold businesses accountable for misleading sales pitches.

The rich and powerful are getting a bit too rich and way too powerful for my taste. They own politics, they own what used to be information, and generally - they can whip just about anyone they want to in the legal world - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting up a fight where we can.

Not really. Demoff's statements quoted in the article all included qualifications and wording that was far from concrete. I'll have to read the statute but I have a hard time seeing this suit go far right now.

 

[12intheBox]

The problem I envision for a lawsuit like this is that the NFL is a multibillion dollar per year industry, they will buy some of, if not the, best lawyers money can buy.

Secondly, if the lawsuit is about false hope, then the Rams could flip it, and include the Missouri Gov, St Louis Mayor, the task force, and all the media writers and talking heads as well. The Rams told them they weren't interested in saying, the media, task force, and government turned and told the fans they were confident, that they thought the NFL would block the Rams from moving, that the stadium deal was good enough even after the NFL said it wasn't. Seems easy for the NFL to flip that around, and I'm obviously not a lawyer.

I don't think it really goes anywhere, I'd be shocked if it even gets picked up. Similar to the Missouri Senator who threatened anti-trust suits, he's gotta convince 99 others to follow up, and quite a few would be going against their NFL teams, for what? There's gonna be a lot of saber rattling from people looking to sue and get revenge, but I don't see any of it going anywhere. If it does go somewhere, the NFL probably wins and then crosses off St Louis as possible locations for relocating or expansion. Just my opinion anyway.

other lawsuits are other lawsuits. They may come and they may not.

as for this one, the Rams can't defend this kind of claim by pointing at things that other people said - the claim is based on their own public statements.

The real problem here is the damages. We are talking about ticket sales and jersey sales and the like - not stadiums and NFL revenues.

And of course the Rams have their own in house counsel and an army of lawyers on the ready - but so what? Thats always the case when you tangle with a giant.

Some kinds of litigation can be deflected - buried - stonewalled - and some kinds really can't. It depends on how far these lawyers who filed this thing want to go w it.

 

[RamFan503]

When a business is selling you something - the things they say in order to sell you those things matter. We want them to matter. We want to hold businesses accountable for misleading sales pitches.

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.

I don't know, you guys. It may seem like sour grapes - and I'm sure a lot of it is - but there are legal grounds here.

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

 

[Mackeyser]

Is there grounds? Maybe. I'm not sure of the statute.

What triggers the uncertainty for me are the damages as 503 mentions and that is key, especially in the quest to achieve class action status.

Did they lie? Turns out they did. Yep. Okay.

However, the Rams can turn around and mea culpa and STILL say that they delivered an NFL product to ticket holders and, well, the merchandise is the merchandise.

The ONLY interesting legal question in all of this, to me anyway, has to do with the legal rights of the PSL holders.

The language for them has the potential to be a massive headache for the now Los Angeles Rams going forward. Especially because precedent was set that the PSL was NOT tied to the EJD, but the team since the team did not initially play in the Dome, but an alternative stadium and their first game in the dome wasn't until November of '95. Thus, there is precedent that the PSLs purchased STAY WITH THE TEAM, NOT THE VENUE.

So... Come March, will letters be going out to all the PSL owners asking if they want to renew their season tix? It seems to be their right under the existing PSL and some absolutely WILL have the money to purchase them and will see it as a huge investment to buy them and sell them to ticket brokers.

Will the NFL have a means to sever PSLs? Refund? I mean, this is the first team to move that has sold PSLs. And rest assured, ALL 32 teams will want input into this because if they screw this up, it will affect the ability for any other team to relocate that has sold PSLs. So, imho, this is actually a pretty big deal or at least has the potential to be. I mean, they might just refund the PSL and screw any St. Louisan fan who might have actually wanted to travel and maintain their season tix and fight the fight in court, because they have to sever in some fashion, but... I dunno.

I dunno, but THAT is the only remaining unresolved LEGAL question I see that has actual damages pending that HAS to be resolved...and soon.

 

[LesBaker]

Not really. Demoff's statements quoted in the article all included qualifications and wording that was far from concrete. I'll have to read the statute but I have a hard time seeing this suit go far right now.

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 shit list is to stop handing over money. So if STL ponies up for a stadium to get a team all will be forgiven.

 

[RamFan503]

Is there grounds? Maybe. I'm not sure of the statute.

What triggers the uncertainty for me are the damages as 503 mentions and that is key, especially in the quest to achieve class action status.

Did they lie? Turns out they did. Yep. Okay.

However, the Rams can turn around and mea culpa and STILL say that they delivered an NFL product to ticket holders and, well, the merchandise is the merchandise.

The ONLY interesting legal question in all of this, to me anyway, has to do with the legal rights of the PSL holders.

The language for them has the potential to be a massive headache for the now Los Angeles Rams going forward. Especially because precedent was set that the PSL was NOT tied to the EJD, but the team since the team did not initially play in the Dome, but an alternative stadium and their first game in the dome wasn't until November of '95. Thus, there is precedent that the PSLs purchased STAY WITH THE TEAM, NOT THE VENUE.

So... Come March, will letters be going out to all the PSL owners asking if they want to renew their season tix? It seems to be their right under the existing PSL and some absolutely WILL have the money to purchase them and will see it as a huge investment to buy them and sell them to ticket brokers.

Will the NFL have a means to sever PSLs? Refund? I mean, this is the first team to move that has sold PSLs. And rest assured, ALL 32 teams will want input into this because if they screw this up, it will affect the ability for any other team to relocate that has sold PSLs. So, imho, this is actually a pretty big deal or at least has the potential to be. I mean, they might just refund the PSL and screw any St. Louisan fan who might have actually wanted to travel and maintain their season tix and fight the fight in court, because they have to sever in some fashion, but... I dunno.

I dunno, but THAT is the only remaining unresolved LEGAL question I see that has actual damages pending that HAS to be resolved...and soon.

Interesting thought about being able to simply refund the PSL moneys of those still holding the ones that don't have the wording "exact seats". I wonder what that would amount to.

I don't really think the change in venue that occurred when the Dome opened has much if any sway. Everyone knew that those PSLs were being purchased for the right to buy tickets in the new Dome - not Busch. I'm going to guess those PSLs had the Dome seat designations on them - not Busch stadium. How else could you do it knowing that the team was going to move into the Dome mid season? So in reality, there isn't a precedent.

 

[Mackeyser]

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.

 

[The Ripper]

The Rams PSL's were based on the Panthers which stated only as long as the team played in the stadium.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

I'm not arguing with you if that is actually what it says. I haven't seen the wording so I am a little skeptical that it actually said that. My guess - only a guess - is that there was some specificity that it was for the purchase of specific seats in the Dome. I'm a little dubious on the thought that PSLs ranged from $250 - $4,500 and didn't specify seats. I'm doubting that the PSL agreement said that a PSL owner could buy any seats he wants. I also am guessing the PSL owners were set in order of preference on Busch Stadium seats according to the price they paid for PSLs but the PSL itself specified the seat in the Dome - not Busch Stadium. Are you saying that the PSLs had no seat assignments at all? Maybe so but that doesn't make sense. I'd like to see the wording before I could agree there is precedent.

 

[RamFan503]

The Rams PSL's were based on the Panthers which stated only as long as the team played in the stadium.

Do you have a link or anything we could look at? I'm again - not disagreeing with you either. I would just like to see what the agreement actually says.

 

[LesBaker]

I'm not arguing with you if that is actually what it says. I haven't seen the wording so I am a little skeptical that it actually said that. My guess - only a guess - is that there was some specificity that it was for the purchase of specific seats in the Dome. I'm a little dubious on the thought that PSLs ranged from $250 - $4,500 and didn't specify seats. I'm doubting that the PSL agreement said that a PSL owner could buy any seats he wants. I also am guessing the PSL owners were set in order of preference on Busch Stadium seats according to the price they paid for PSLs but the PSL itself specified the seat in the Dome - not Busch Stadium. Are you saying that the PSLs had no seat assignments at all? Maybe so but that doesn't make sense. I'd like to see the wording before I could agree there is precedent.

If memory serves the team just assigned seats in the new dome..........I thought I heard that on a trip to STL.

 

[RamFan503]

If memory serves the team just assigned seats in the new dome..........I thought I heard that on a trip to STL.

So people bought PSLs blindly?

 

[The Ripper]

Do you have a link or anything we could look at? I'm again - not disagreeing with you either. I would just like to see what the agreement actually says.

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