Rams in St. Louis a problem not going away

[ArkyRamsFan]

To the best of my knowledge it expired.

DaveFan'51,
I am by no means an expert but according to what I understand an independent arbitrator ruled that the stadium had fallen below the "top 25%" tier therefore effectively voiding the remaining years of the lease.

Of course St. Louis was given an opportunity to make the necessary upgrades to bring the stadium up to the 25% level but opted not to do so.
Hope that helps!!

~ArkyRamsFan~

 

[Riverumbbq]

I wish we could quit posting this crap because it never fails that people start posting crap that downs St.Louis.

Fact is, this crap was set up since 2012, they were always going to move. They allowed st.louis to continue to spend more and more money, all for not. They put a crap product on the field and expected undying support. Stan Kroeke and the NFL freaked St.Louis and in turn the local fans.

Kroenke and the league both owe an explanation and some form of payback. My fantasy is that the NFL funds a new stadium and gives us an expansion team to support locally but I know that's just a dream.

Is it Karma ? Is it sage advice to not do unto others as you would have them do unto you ? Has Los Angeles done to St. Louis what St. Louis previously had done to Los Angeles ?

"The Rams exercised an escape clause in their Anaheim Stadium lease to begin the pursuit of a state-of-the-art football facility that would provide additional opportunities for revenue, such as premium seating and luxury boxes." April 13, 1995|T.J. SIMERS


How is what L.A. did any different than what St. Louis did in acquiring the Rams ? The NFL approved both moves. Much of L.A. hates Georgia Frontierre, as St. Louis seemingly hates Stan Kroenke, how is it that the court system should find one side guilty and the other ... not ? Where and what is the evidence of wrongdoing, and by whom ? Or perhaps, just maybe, a wrong was being made right ?

 

[Corbin]

I wish we could quit posting this crap because it never fails that people start posting crap that downs St.Louis.

Fact is, this crap was set up since 2012, they were always going to move. They allowed st.louis to continue to spend more and more money, all for not. They put a crap product on the field and expected undying support. Stan Kroeke and the NFL freaked St.Louis and in turn the local fans.

Kroenke and the league both owe an explanation and some form of payback. My fantasy is that the NFL funds a new stadium and gives us an expansion team to support locally but I know that's just a dream.

Dude please grow up! You don't negotiate like that! THIS IS HOW YOU NEGOTIATE!!

View: https://youtu.be/3oKwg6W05MU


:rolllaugh:

 

[jrry32]

Just settle this nonsense by relinquishing their rights to the Rams HQ building in Missouri.

 

[den-the-coach]

Once Again I believe we need this:

 

[MTRamsFan]

 

[den-the-coach]

And this:

 

[Mojo Ram]

Think before you post...

 

[den-the-coach]

Think before you post...

 

[Dxmissile]

Is it Karma ? Is it sage advice to not do unto others as you would have them do unto you ? Has Los Angeles done to St. Louis what St. Louis previously had done to Los Angeles ?

"The Rams exercised an escape clause in their Anaheim Stadium lease to begin the pursuit of a state-of-the-art football facility that would provide additional opportunities for revenue, such as premium seating and luxury boxes." April 13, 1995|T.J. SIMERS


How is what L.A. did any different than what St. Louis did in acquiring the Rams ? The NFL approved both moves. Much of L.A. hates Georgia Frontierre, as St. Louis seemingly hates Stan Kroenke, how is it that the court system should find one side guilty and the other ... not ? Where and what is the evidence of wrongdoing, and by whom ? Or perhaps, just maybe, a wrong was being made right ?

The difference is one city didn't have another stadium plan in place and for all her faults Georgia made it plain and clear that she was moving the team. Everybody wanna focus on the top tier clause when that IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE LAWSUIT.

 

[Dxmissile]

Is it Karma ? Is it sage advice to not do unto others as you would have them do unto you ? Has Los Angeles done to St. Louis what St. Louis previously had done to Los Angeles ?

"The Rams exercised an escape clause in their Anaheim Stadium lease to begin the pursuit of a state-of-the-art football facility that would provide additional opportunities for revenue, such as premium seating and luxury boxes." April 13, 1995|T.J. SIMERS


How is what L.A. did any different than what St. Louis did in acquiring the Rams ? The NFL approved both moves. Much of L.A. hates Georgia Frontierre, as St. Louis seemingly hates Stan Kroenke, how is it that the court system should find one side guilty and the other ... not ? Where and what is the evidence of wrongdoing, and by whom ? Or perhaps, just maybe, a wrong was being made right ?

They have evidence of Kroenke Demoff the NFL Commisoner on record telling ST.Louis that they was doing everything right.
Kroenke is on record calling Demoff before he purchased that land saying it was a perfect spot for a stadium. Demoff was on record stated that there was no plans to move when in fact him and Kroenke was talking about stadium relocation and plans years before the top tier clause came into effect. Then you have all the crap Grubman was telling Dave Peacock and you have some serious evidence suggesting that the NFL and Kroenke intentionally mis led the Stl stadium task force to keep attendance sales and merchandise sales from falling

 

[Debacled]

This is not about hurt feelings.

This is about money. The city is still after the money that the Rams and the NFL had them spending in what both the Rams and NFL knew was a complete waste. They both kept feeding the city the idea that golly gee if you really try you won't lose the team. And at the same time kept trying to assure there weren't ready made plans and a whole frickin move plan laid out, when there obviously was after the fact.

I'm all for being over it, but the bottom line is the city wants the money they spent trying to keep the team (which was never a realistic option).

 

[RamInferno]

I'm not sure how the League or Goodell or Kroenke could have deceived St. Louis into spending money when approval of the move wasn't their decision. It came down to a vote of all the owners, so the the only thing anyone could have said is that you're doing what the owners will want to see.... But there's no way that could have been taken as any kind of guarantee since it was out of their control. In fact, up until the actual vote, everyone was saying they had enough owner votes to block the Rams from moving. So it sounds like St. Louis was good with the process as long as it was going their way.

 

[Riverumbbq]

The difference is one city didn't have another stadium plan in place and for all her faults Georgia made it plain and clear that she was moving the team. Everybody wanna focus on the top tier clause when that IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE LAWSUIT.

So what ? It comes down to Kroenke covering his behind if St. Louis doesn't make good on its promise to maintain the stadium as contractually agreed. Stan may or may not have lied about the original 60 acre site he purchased, but a landowner can always change his mind on how he wishes to proceed with development, and he is one of the biggest developers in the country.
http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nfl...r-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-land-los-angeles

It was almost a full year after the purchase of the 60 acres when the announcement was made to partner with Stockbridge on the adjacent 238 acre Hollywood Park site that really made the new stadium viable. By this time St. Louis had sealed their own fate as "In February of last year (2014), an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season." Which it did.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/st-louis-rams-owner-plans-761087

 

[OldSchool]

Seems like I've seen these same arguments for over a year almost 2 years now and nobody on either side has swayed anybody to their side.

 

[Dxmissile]

So what ? It comes down to Kroenke covering his behind if St. Louis doesn't make good on its promise to maintain the stadium as contractually agreed. Stan may or may not have lied about the original 60 acre site he purchased, but a landowner can always change his mind on how he wishes to proceed with development, and he is one of the biggest developers in the country.
http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nfl...r-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-land-los-angeles

It was almost a full year after the purchase of the 60 acres when the announcement was made to partner with Stockbridge on the adjacent 238 acre Hollywood Park site that really made the new stadium viable. By this time St. Louis had sealed their own fate as "In February of last year (2014), an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season." Which it did.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/st-louis-rams-owner-plans-761087

Lol how long do you think it takes to purchase that land. Demoff is on record saying Kroenke called him BEFORE he bought the land saying it was perfect for a stadium. And when he finally purchased the Land Demoff and everybody else was saying it wasn't for a stadium. I don't get how hard it is to understand what this lawsuit is about it has nothing to with the top tier clause if you read the OP it does not even mention the top tier clause in the suit

 

[Dxmissile]

So what ? It comes down to Kroenke covering his behind if St. Louis doesn't make good on its promise to maintain the stadium as contractually agreed. Stan may or may not have lied about the original 60 acre site he purchased, but a landowner can always change his mind on how he wishes to proceed with development, and he is one of the biggest developers in the country.
http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nfl...r-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-land-los-angeles

It was almost a full year after the purchase of the 60 acres when the announcement was made to partner with Stockbridge on the adjacent 238 acre Hollywood Park site that really made the new stadium viable. By this time St. Louis had sealed their own fate as "In February of last year (2014), an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season." Which it did.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/st-louis-rams-owner-plans-761087

The lease went to month to month. Just to be clear the top tier clause was for the team to go month to month in the lease not to relocate. That's why the NFL has their own rules for relocation. So when the arbitrator said that the 750 million dollar upgrade was needed to make the stadium top tier the City immediately came up with a Brand new stadium proposal. The arbitrator ruling was about the amount needed to make the stadium top tier not about whether the Rams could move

 

[Dxmissile]

I'm not sure how the League or Goodell or Kroenke could have deceived St. Louis into spending money when approval of the move wasn't their decision. It came down to a vote of all the owners, so the the only thing anyone could have said is that you're doing what the owners will want to see.... But there's no way that could have been taken as any kind of guarantee since it was out of their control. In fact, up until the actual vote, everyone was saying they had enough owner votes to block the Rams from moving. So it sounds like St. Louis was good with the process as long as it was going their way.

You must missed what Goddell said about the city not meeting the relocation guidelines and how Kroenke blasted the city on his way out. Goddell specifically said that we didn't meet the guidelines to make it worse Grubman told the task force that the NFL would give them an extra 100 million for the stadium. And Goddell used that as a reason to say that the stadium financing wasn't complete but it was their suggestion that they would give it to them. Then Goddell offer that same 100 million to San Diego and Oakland if they came up with a stadium solution. The lawsuit is necessarily designed to win it's about the discovery phase and that's what I'm waiting to see

 

[Riverumbbq]

Lol how long do you think it takes to purchase that land. Demoff is on record saying Kroenke called him BEFORE he bought the land saying it was perfect for a stadium. And when he finally purchased the Land Demoff and everybody else was saying it wasn't for a stadium. I don't get how hard it is to understand what this lawsuit is about it has nothing to with the top tier clause if you read the OP it does not even mention the top tier clause in the suit

Just because the OP doesn't mention it, do you believe a defendant isn't going to use everything available to support their case ?
The earlier original 60 acre purchase was a year prior to the Stockbridge partnership agreement with the other 238 acres at Hollywood Park. We have no way of knowing whether Kroenke would have attempted to build on the smaller 60 acre site had the other not become available. In fact, if the NFL were to make its decision based on only the 60 acre site and the Carson site which emerged later, who knows what would have happened ?
Just because Demoff & Kroenke stated the 60 acre site might be perfect for a new stadium doesn't mean it would necessarily fit all of their plans & needs, which apparently it didn't, as they went ahead and partnered later with the owners of Hollywood Park on a site now closer to 300 total acres.
Proving in court that Kroenke was going to go ahead with building a new Los Angeles Stadium while St. Louis held a viable lease is going to be extremely difficult, proving that Kroenke was lying about what he was ultimately planning to do with the 60 acres is also going to be very difficult. Suing doesn't mean winning, ... this will more than likely be settled out of court for peanuts if anything, and it may not happen for several more years. Attorneys will make lots of money while some St.Louis politicians try and save face for letting an NFL team get away, ... in the end, it was a money decision, and St. Louis didn't want to re-build the Edward Jones Dome into a top 10 or 12 NFL Palace while continuing the sweetheart lease arrangement which originally enticed the Rams to leave Los Angeles.

 

[Dxmissile]

Just because the OP doesn't mention it, do you believe a defendant isn't going to use everything available to support their case ?
The earlier original 60 acre purchase was a year prior to the Stockbridge partnership agreement with the other 238 acres at Hollywood Park. We have no way of knowing whether Kroenke would have attempted to build on the smaller 60 acre site had the other not become available. In fact, if the NFL were to make its decision based on only the 60 acre site and the Carson site which emerged later, who knows what would have happened ?
Just because Demoff & Kroenke stated the 60 acre site might be perfect for a new stadium doesn't mean it would necessarily fit all of their plans & needs, which apparently it didn't, as they went ahead and partnered later with the owners of Hollywood Park on a site now closer to 300 total acres.
Proving in court that Kroenke was going to go ahead with building a new Los Angeles Stadium while St. Louis held a viable lease is going to be extremely difficult, proving that Kroenke was lying about what he was ultimately planning to do with the 60 acres is also going to be very difficult. Suing doesn't mean winning, ... this will more than likely be settled out of court for peanuts if anything, and it may not happen for several more years. Attorneys will make lots of money while some St.Louis politicians try and save face for letting an NFL team get away, ... in the end, it was a money decision, and St. Louis didn't want to re-build the Edward Jones Dome into a top 10 or 12 NFL Palace while continuing the sweetheart lease arrangement which originally enticed the Rams to leave Los Angeles.

You keep misunderstanding Kroenke said out of his own mouth that this site is perfect for a stadium that's what he said and that's what he always intended to do with that site. You're right it was a money decision that's why the NFL forgoes their own relocation guidelines in order to let them move. You say the city didn't want to spend the money but the city was building a 1.3 billion dollar stadium. Had all the financing and even had naming rights set that would have been the 3rd highest in the NFL. Trust me I understand the money play. The NFL didn't have to come out of any money for Stans stadium and even got money from him for the relocation fee. I don't know any stl fans that don't understand that aspect of it. It's the fact that for over a yr the city was constantly told to this do that when in reality the NFL and Kroenke already knew they was moving no matter what