LA seats

[Mikey Ram]

if this is old news I apologize...Wonder how many lawsuits there will be before the frenzy ebbs...

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/story...-holders-sue-los-angeles-rams-access-la-seats

 

[Rambitious1]

 

[12intheBox]

:mrburnsevil:

 

[RamFan503]

Guess we'll see. Just seems that there are way to many ways around this. But at least the attorney will get paid huge money if they win while the plaintiffs will get peanuts. I wonder if the brother and sister-in-law have agreed to kickbacks if they win. I suppose they will get more as the lead plaintiffs anyway but... So what was St Louis' plan if the new stadium got approved? Weren't there several million dollars of funding supposed to be coming from that? And wasn't it actually the CVC/RSA that sold the PSLs for the first 10 years of the Rams in St Louis as part of their guarantees?

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not convinced, and it seems like a really easy thing to beat for the Rams. Lets just assume that the PSL contract does extend to all stadiums, including the LA one... Which I very much doubt, but lets say it does.

So the Rams say: "Okay, St Louis PSL owners, you're right,you own the seats to your PSL, section 300, row A, seats 1 and 2, you may purchase those seats in Inglewood."

Then they create the seating charts for Inglewood... Section 300, row 1, seat A.

The seats you own, don't exist in Inglewood.

 

[Ramhusker]

Of course, the whole deal will be settled in favor of the side with the best lawyers who interpret the language the most favorably for their clients but I hate the whole idea of PSLs and hope the plaintiffs win this one because that is what is right. At the least, PSL fees paid should be refunded to the payers. They were supposed to be lifetime contracts no? Seems like a pretty clear breach of contract if that is true.

 

[fearsomefour]

Guess we'll see. Just seems that there are way to many ways around this. But at least the attorney will get paid huge money if they win while the plaintiffs will get peanuts. I wonder if the brother and sister-in-law have agreed to kickbacks if they win. I suppose they will get more as the lead plaintiffs anyway but... So what was St Louis' plan if the new stadium got approved? Weren't there several million dollars of funding supposed to be coming from that? And wasn't it actually the CVC/RSA that sold the PSLs for the first 10 years of the Rams in St Louis as part of their guarantees?

You mean facts play a roll? I thought it was all just about feeling and bitterness....

 

[12intheBox]

Of course, the whole deal will be settled in favor of the side with the best lawyers who interpret the language the most favorably for their clients but I hate the whole idea of PSLs and hope the plaintiffs win this one because that is what is right. At the least, PSL fees paid should be refunded to the payers. They were supposed to be lifetime contracts no? Seems like a pretty clear breach of contract if that is true.

Real issue is how good the lawyers who wrote the PSL agreements way back when were.

Even the best litigators in the world can't win a case based on a crappy transactional lawyers screwup. The facts are what the facts are.

 

[LetsGoRams]

Probably the same lawyers who wrote up the lease!! You don't think Kroenke and his lawyers went over that PSL agreement with a fine-toothed comb. I, as a season ticket holder, don't have a chance, and don't really care anymore. It's done. It's over. As soon as all of these butthurt people realize it, the better their lives will be.

 

[12intheBox]

Probably the same lawyers who wrote up the lease!! You don't think Kroenke and his lawyers went over that PSL agreement with a fine-toothed comb. I, as a season ticket holder, don't have a chance, and don't really care anymore. It's done. It's over. As soon as all of these butthurt people realize it, the better their lives will be.

I suppose thats one way to look at it. But here is another. Kroenke did what was in best financial interests in moving to LA, so did the league in approving him. These plaintiffs are doing the same thing - it is in their best interests to recoup as much as they can. And why shouldn't they?

Why does it bother you if the Rams get sued? It doesn't mean they will move back, it doesn't mean they will lose salary cap room, what difference does it make to you if Kroenke loses a few hundred thou or even a few mill?

But back to this suit ... even if Kroenke and his lawyers did go over this all with a fine tooth comb - it would have been too late. By the time he became majority owner, these contracts were signed and in force - he inherited any and all of the Rams contractual obligations when he exercised his right to buy the rest of the team. Knowing your exposure and being able to do something about it are two different things.

 

[RamFan503]

I suppose thats one way to look at it. But here is another. Kroenke did what was in best financial interests in moving to LA, so did the league in approving him. These plaintiffs are doing the same thing - it is in their best interests to recoup as much as they can. And why shouldn't they?

Why does it bother you if the Rams get sued? It doesn't mean they will move back, it doesn't mean they will lose salary cap room, what difference does it make to you if Kroenke loses a few hundred thou or even a few mill?

But back to this suit ... even if Kroenke and his lawyers did go over this all with a fine tooth comb - it would have been too late. By the time he became majority owner, these contracts were signed and in force - he inherited any and all of the Rams contractual obligations when he exercised his right to buy the rest of the team. Knowing your exposure and being able to do something about it are two different things.

Agree with all of this. I would say however, that you could just as easily flip it. There are quite a few that are on the other end of the seesaw. Some are rejoicing in the idea of Stan getting sued..... as if it will make a difference in their lives if he loses a few hundred thou or even a few mill. Why do some persist in arguing the rights of some to sue Stan? Not much difference in my view than someone disavowing the merits of the case.

 

[LesBaker]

You mean facts play a roll? I thought it was all just about feeling and bitterness....

If you bought PSL's a few years ago, and plunked down say 6 grand or 15 grand based on Kroenke saying "I'm not leading the charge out of STL" and that people could trust him he's from MO and he only bought into the Rams because they were moving to STL I bet you'd want some of that back.

 

[12intheBox]

Agree with all of this. I would say however, that you could just as easily flip it. There are quite a few that are on the other end of the seesaw. Some are rejoicing in the idea of Stan getting sued..... as if it will make a difference in their lives if he loses a few hundred thou or even a few mill. Why do some persist in arguing the rights of some to sue Stan? Not much difference in my view than someone disavowing the merits of the case.

Sure, and we know thats just sour grapes. Anyone rejoicing in Stan losing money for any reason is just bitter because (a) he moved the team and (b) how he went about it.

And while I don't endorse that line of thinking, I at least understand it.

Quite frankly, from my standpoint - I just want the league and more specifically Kroenke to notice. I don't benefit at all - its just entertainment for me - but the NFL was pretty stinking callous in the way this went down. I'd like to see them learn from their mistakes - as this likely won't be the last time a team moves - and I think the only way they learn a thing here is if their pocketbooks get tickled a bit.

Now, there is just no way this turns into a bad move for Stan - the move is just too profitable - so its not like anyone expects him to wish he had stayed. This is looking like it will go down as the most profitable relocation in sports history, for crying out loud.

But it would be nice if the next go around, the league stopped and said - well, what about the existing market? What about the fans we are walking away from with this move? Do we have ANY obligations to consider with respect to them?

 

[Loyal]

I guess I don't know how PSL's and regular season tickets work together, but it seems that a PSL just gives you the ability to buy season tix? I have heard that LA PSL's $50,000 each? If the dispute is that current St Louis PSL holders want to be able to buy season tix without paying the PSL's? This must be it.

 

[12intheBox]

I guess I don't know how PSL's and regular season tickets work together, but it seems that a PSL just gives you the ability to buy season tix? I have heard that LA PSL's $50,000 each? If the dispute is that current St Louis PSL holders want to be able to buy season tix without paying the PSL's? This must be it.

The dispute is that the PSL agreements (at least some of them) apparently offered the owner the right to buy season tickets thru 2025. It didn't specify a stadium or even a city. So the STL PSL holders argue that they own the rights to buy season tickets in LA. PSLs are transferrable so the St. Louis PSL holders would be able to sell them to people in LA if they wanted or they could buy season tickets and sell the individual games if they so chose. Either way, they argue that the license (the right to buy the season ticket) is already owned thru 2025.

The Rams - who sold these PSLs to people in STL - now want to sell brand new PSLs for the LA Stadium. They will argue that the PSLs purchased for the St. Louis Rams do not - in fact - apply to any LA games - that they were only for STL games.

As in all contract disputes, it depends on the language of the contract and I have yet to see the language of the PSLs in this lawsuit.

If the language is favorable for the STL PSL holders, I would expect a nice quiet and fairly quick settlement - as the Rams don't want litigation tying up their ability to sell PSLs as soon as they can. If the language is not favorable, I expect a motion to dismiss to be granted - also pretty quickly.

 

[Force16X]

where i live, the PSL's @ nationwide arena allowed the PSL owner first shot at season tickets for the columbus blue jackets and the ability to purchase tickets to other events first such as concerts, shows and i believe it included the NCAA tournament games played there a couple years back. i'm sure it is a case by case situation but there are perks for getting a PSL.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Sure, and we know thats just sour grapes. Anyone rejoicing in Stan losing money for any reason is just bitter because (a) he moved the team and (b) how he went about it.

And while I don't endorse that line of thinking, I at least understand it.

Quite frankly, from my standpoint - I just want the league and more specifically Kroenke to notice. I don't benefit at all - its just entertainment for me - but the NFL was pretty stinking callous in the way this went down. I'd like to see them learn from their mistakes - as this likely won't be the last time a team moves - and I think the only way they learn a thing here is if their pocketbooks get tickled a bit.

Now, there is just no way this turns into a bad move for Stan - the move is just too profitable - so its not like anyone expects him to wish he had stayed. This is looking like it will go down as the most profitable relocation in sports history, for crying out loud.

But it would be nice if the next go around, the league stopped and said - well, what about the existing market? What about the fans we are walking away from with this move? Do we have ANY obligations to consider with respect to them?

I'll be honest, I don't think the NFL is ever going to care that much about their home markets, and this probably isn't going to make them suddenly pause.. Especially because I'm of the opinion that it's likely pretty easy to beat, and I don't think much is going to come of this. I think if this lawsuit had any traction, those lawyers would have posted the PSL wording that says they have the rights to season tickets regardless of where they play.

I think there also would have been some challenges over the Riverfront stadium... You think people who bought PSL's wouldn't have also made the argument they are already covered in the new stadium?

Additionally, it seems the PSL states it gives them the right to the specific seat.. Meaning if the seating chart for Inglewood is different, they're SOL.

 

[Ramatik]

But it would be nice if the next go around, the league stopped and said - well, what about the existing market? What about the fans we are walking away from with this move? Do we have ANY obligations to consider with respect to them?

IF they would have done that before they left Los Angeles in the first place, we could have avoided the whole mess.

But beyond that, I think the Rams should pay up on that. That's a nice chunk of change to plop down for the "right" to buy a ticket. If I was sitting in their seats... or not able to sit in my seat because of the move, I'd be flipping out angry after I paid for the "right".

But if they get their money back, or some portion due to time elapsed or whatever... that's fair.

 

[RamFan503]

If you bought PSL's a few years ago, and plunked down say 6 grand or 15 grand based on Kroenke saying "I'm not leading the charge out of STL" and that people could trust him he's from MO and he only bought into the Rams because they were moving to STL I bet you'd want some of that back.

If you bought those PSLs for that amount, you were paying above retail. If you did that in the last few years while this possibility has been a constant cloud overhead, you probably deserve to lose at least the amount you paid above retail.

BTW - I wonder if the PSL agreement says St Louis Rams.

 

[12intheBox]

If you bought those PSLs for that amount, you were paying above retail. If you did that in the last few years while this possibility has been a constant cloud overhead, you probably deserve to lose at least the amount you paid above retail.

BTW - I wonder if the PSL agreement says St Louis Rams.

If it did you think that matter?

It would be an interesting defense - but I think it would be like a company getting into a contract, changing their corporate name, and then arguing that they aren't bound by the contract because of the name change.