New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Funny, Dave Peacock was just on with the Cardinals (baseball) crew a few moments ago and he himself said it wasn't a "breach" of the contract. He did say the end result is the Rams are now in a year to year lease as a result of the dome not being in top tier. He knows more about this stuff than any of us, so yeah, I'm gonna roll with him though I already knew this.

Not his lease. The Rams wrote the lease not Dave Peacock.

 

[dieterbrock]

I suggest that anyone in this thread that is starting to get a little worked up, go out and find a 49er fan and punch them in the mouth.
And for those that arent getting worked up, punch a 49er fan in the mouth just because

 

[RamzFanz]

They were in breach of the lease. Ramifications are triggered by a breach. Prior to the amended lease the Rams had to sue to determine if they were in breach the addition of arbitration removed the need to go to court for a breach.

I haven't followed those reports so I was wondering. Not meeting a requirement of a lease isn't a breech if there is a remedy included in the lease. An "either or" provision.

 

[The Ripper]

I suggest that anyone in this thread that is starting to get a little worked up, go out and find a 49er fan and punch them in the mouth.
And for those that arent getting worked up, punch a 49er fan in the mouth just because

I don't have any of their fans close just Chiefs, Steelers and Packers fans.

 

[The Ripper]

I haven't followed those reports so I was wondering. Not meeting a requirement of a lease isn't a breech if there is a remedy included in the lease. An "either or" provision.

Not a remedy. A breach triggers the ramifications

 

[RamzFanz]

Not a remedy. A breach triggers the ramifications

JT may have just been using that term loosely in his tweet or for restriction of characters in a tweet. I've read several reports just now and none say it was a breach.

From what I'm reading, it was an if / or requirement. If the Dome is top tier, the Rams are obligated to stay or if not, than they can choose to shift to a year to year or leave. Thus far, they have chosen to shift to a year to year as provided in the lease.

"The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Committee confirmed Monday that the Rams informed the group of its intentions to shift to a year-to-year lease agreement for the Edward Jones Dome, according to the Associated Press.

The CVC operates the dome. The Rams had a Wednesday deadline in order to notify the CVC of such a shift, a change it is permitted to make should the stadium be deemed not among the top 25 percent best in the NFL based on certain criteria."

If I'm correct that this was an "if or" type of provision, it wasn't a breach. A breach is not fulfilling an absolute requirement of the lease. This doesn't sound like an absolute requirement but an option for both the dome and the Rams.

The "Ramifications", the outcome, were the result of an option being exercised.

 

[The Ripper]

JL may have just been using that term loosely in his tweet or for restriction of characters in a tweet. I've read several reports just now and none say it was a breach.

From what I'm reading, it was an if / or requirement. If the Dome is top tier, the Rams are obligated to stay or if not, than they can choose to shift to a year to year or leave. Thus far, they have chosen to shift to a year to year as provided in the lease.

"The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Committee confirmed Monday that the Rams informed the group of its intentions to shift to a year-to-year lease agreement for the Edward Jones Dome, according to the Associated Press.

The CVC operates the dome. The Rams had a Wednesday deadline in order to notify the CVC of such a shift, a change it is permitted to make should the stadium be deemed not among the top 25 percent best in the NFL based on certain criteria."

If I'm correct that this was an "if or" type of provision, it wasn't a breach. A breach is not fulfilling an absolute requirement of the lease. This doesn't sound like an absolute requirement but an option for the dome Rams.

The 1st tier requirement was absolute. It was an escape clause put in there by Shaw and it was designed so the Rams would have legal standing to relocate. The 2007 amended lease allowed the team to go to arbitration instead of court to determine if there was a breach in order to allow the team to go year to year, negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and to relocate. No one wants to use the term breach because of the nature of the word except for the Rams in trying to get approval to relocate.

What is a more compelling argument for the owners. they didn't comply with the lease or they were in breach of the lease.

 

[RamFan503]

2) As regards Section C, subheading 4...The Rams received a TON of public money when they came to St. Louis (an essentially "free" stadium, tax abatements, a sweetheart lease and the poison pill "top tier" clause that allowed them to even be in this position). There is ZERO way to say that the lease was "breached". The terms of the LEASE were to maintain a top tier stadium or got o arbitration to judge what would be top tier, THEN if the CVC did not make the updates, the remaining years of the lease would be void and the Rams commitment would be annual and the CVC commitment to the facility for the Rams would likewise be annual. That is execution of the clauses in the contract, NOT "BREACH". Does it legally give the Rams the right to seek a new home, without the CVC....damn right it gives them the right to LOOK. The right to move though is no where in the existing lease, that right is granted by the NFL. I get massively sick of reading people state the city of St. Louis "breached" the contract. The parties have followed the provisions of the lease to a tee, so stop calling it a "breach" already....arrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhh! (Sorry, had to vent my inner Charlie Brown there...)

Don't have time to read the whole thing right now Moostache but I have said it several times before that once a team takes public money, there is an additional obligation to the tax payers of the city, county, state - or at least there SHOULD be. This idea that a team can take multi-millions in public funds and then hold those taxpayers hostage again in a couple decades is just idiotic to me.

I mean, we are all talking about the amounts the different cities are offering up to these highly profitable businesses and which city is offering the best deal. It kind of makes me sick. I can see offering tax incentives and such for businesses that provide good jobs or a highly enhanced tax base but the kind of money being thrown at NFL billionaires so that these cities can one up each other is nothing short of ridiculous.

The breach argument is pretty much circular on a forum and is likely only going to be answered by a court if it goes to court. I'm not sure I would call it breach but I would certainly say that the CVC did not hold up their end of the lease. Regardless, I would not be surprised at all if a court would call it breach and it the reports are true, the Rams consider it such.

One area where I believe you are mistaken is that the arbitration came about in the restructuring of the lease in '07. Regardless, breach is most simply defined as one party not fulfilling its end of a lease. The ending of the lease term and going month to month is more of a remedy than both sides fulfilling the provisions of the lease. In some leases there are monetary damages spelled out, in others the non-fulfilling party has to pay the other the amount left in the lease, in others the lease simply terminates in 30 days. But just because the remedy is spelled out in the lease amendment, doesn't mean the contract was fulfilled.

I'm not sure how much it really matters except in the court of NFL owner perception. If the NFL owners buy that it was an agreed upon provision of the lease and all parties acted in good faith then there you go. If not, then they will be deciding which side failed to live up to the bargain.

The whole breach argument is fruitless. Of course most if not all of what we are discussing is as well.

But as you said, the Rams have taken MILLIONS in tax dollars and in the grand scheme of things that really should mean something. But it's all monopoly money to the politicians and NFL owners.

 

[RamBill]

Jason Cole: Owners Split in Support of Rams, Raiders/Chargers for LA Move

Multiple teams want in on the plans to build a football stadium and relocate to Los Angeles. Why are some owners being vocal about backing the Rams as the team to move? What are the problems the Raiders and Chargers might face? Watch as Bleacher Report NFL Insider Jason Cole breaks down the situation.

Watch Cole Talk LA

 

[RamzFanz]

The 1st tier requirement was absolute. It was an escape clause put in there by Shaw and it was designed so the Rams would have legal standing to relocate. The 2007 amended lease allowed the team to go to arbitration instead of court to determine if there was a breach in order to allow the team to go year to year, negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and to relocate. No one wants to use the term breach because of the nature of the word except for the Rams in trying to get approval to relocate.

What is more compelling argument for the owners. they didn't comply with the lease or they were in breach of the lease.

If it says the CVC agrees to keep the dome top tier, and that's it, then it's a breach. If it says that the Rams can leave or go to year to year after this date if the dome isn't top tier, it's not a breach, it's a provision that was allowed for.

If an apartment lease says "no dogs allowed" and you get a dog, you are breaching your lease. If it says you will have to replace the carpet if you own a dog, it's not a breach to own a dog.

 

[RamFan503]

I haven't seen anything like that HERE.
Elsewhere though, it's not so nice.
And it seems that even here its getting closer to that. But I hope not.

Then please don't bring it here. The members here as far as I can see don't deserve finger wagging for something they haven't done here.

 

[MrMotes]

f it says the CVC agrees to keep the dome top tier, and that's it, then it's a breach. If it says that the Rams can leave or go to year to year after this date if the dome isn't top tier, it's not a breach, it's a provision that was allowed for.

What practical difference does this semantic distinction make?

 

[RamFan503]

OK - I'm going to shut this down for a bit. I am not liking the vibe once again. It won't be permanent but I don't have time to deal with the angst I see going on right now.

I'll open it up tomorrow some time. I have a cardboard boat to finish building. Don't ask.

 

[RamFan503]

Uh, no, this is NOT true. The guy who was bidding against Kraft for the obnoxious Patriots (although they weren't obnoxious at the time, just a sorry sack of losers), was St. Louisan James Orthwein.

As for what the Rosenblooms want, it goes without saying -- and they aren't saying it on the record but JT has alluded to it -- that they want the Rams to stay in St. Louis. Indeed, when they sold that is what they were happiest about -- selling to a Missourian who would keep the Rams in st. Louis. Funny now, looking back. . . or not so funny, as the case may be.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/22/sports/sold-time-to-call-them-the-new-england-permanents.html

Just sayin'. This is the attitude I'm growing real tired of. Not that someone disagrees, but the "Uh no" bullshit. Never mind the fact that you're flat out wrong no matter how you slice it, but the attitude has to go.

When you find yourself wanting to disrespect someone on this thread or anywhere else in this forum (and this goes for everyone) just lean on the delete key.

 

[RamFan503]

So @iced PMd me with this article that contained an interview with Dave Peacock. The thing I got out of it most was how he and the interviewer simply discussed the issues as they saw them. So I wanted to post this and ask that everyone give the interview a listen before we start the thread back up.

Keep in mind, I am not taking a side here or saying everything that is said is fact - though most seems pretty well common sense. What I want members to take from it is how the two interact. They address issues without attitude. They discuss the stadium progress, interaction with the Rams, how Dave views the Rams organization, how they view the next steps, etc... and they do it really without sarcasm or calling anyone out. The interviewer (aside from one parting comment) is the anti-Bernie or Vinny. He did a very nice job IMO.

Most of the members here have kept their cool through this whole process - which is amazing in itself considering what is at stake here. So I'm not trying to wag my finger at the members here. What I would like though is for everyone to listen to this interview and then give this post a like thus indicating you have listened to it before posting any kind of reply. Even though the thread is locked, I believe you can still give posts a like.

My plan is to open the thread back up tomorrow after y'all get a chance to give this interview a listen. If anyone starts posting without acknowledging they have listened to the interview, they should not be surprised to find themselves blocked from the thread.

Again, this is not about the fan bases but how Dave Peacock conducts himself and shows respect to all involved. I have to admit that I am more of a fan of his than at any time in this process because of it.

Here it is:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/08/12/peacock-on-stlnfl-new-stadium-would-be-a-public-asset/

 

[RamFan503]

Sorry I didn't get a chance to open up this thread yesterday. I was a little busy. So have at it and remember to keep things civil or don't post.

Cheers

 

[dbrooks25]

Sorry I didn't get a chance to open up this thread yesterday. I was a little busy. So have at it and remember to keep things civil or don't post.

Cheers

Good move on shutting down this thread for a while, I think we all deserved a break. No new news, just a lot of back and forth.

 

[RamFan503]

Good move on shutting down this thread for a while, I think we all deserved a break. No new news, just a lot of back and forth.

Yeah - I started to sit down yesterday and decided - meh. Another day wouldn't hurt. Besides, my restaurant was a zoo and sitting down to the computer seemed a bit unimportant at the time.

 

[The Ripper]

Yeah - I started to sit down yesterday and decided - meh. Another day wouldn't hurt. Besides, my restaurant was a zoo and sitting down to the computer seemed a bit unimportant at the time.

RamFan503, here's some details on the leases in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore and the Colts actual lease. All NFL leases go through the various committees and then the owners vote to approve all financial terms and conditions so I can't see why any city would trust the NFL after looking at these teams leases. The Colts lease doesn't look too bad after a quick read.

Comparison for Cleveland and a few other cities.

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/firstenergy_stadium_lease_bad.html

Cleveland lease dissected

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/firstenergy_stadium_lease_diss.html

Cincinnati

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852

Colts lease

http://www.capitalimprovementboard....013/07/Indianapolis-Colts-Lease-Agreement.pdf

 

[theramsruleUK]

Yeah - I started to sit down yesterday and decided - meh. Another day wouldn't hurt. Besides, my restaurant was a zoo and sitting down to the computer seemed a bit unimportant at the time.

What food do you serve in your restaurant man?