Rams in St. Louis a problem not going away

[Dxmissile]

DX you keep saying the Rams "played" the fans of St. Louis, yet you NEVER acknoweledge the fact that your own politicians "played" those same fans.


Anyway, its all moot now.

When have I ever said anything about the fans of St Louis. I didn't even mention the Rams. I said the NFL misled the City of St. Louis not the fans into thinking there was a real relocation process when in fact there wasn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Dxmissile]

You had a owner in Shad Khan who tried to buy the Rams he came out publicly and said that the Rams would stay. But Kroenke used his right of first refusal which is fair and what I would have done too. Kroenke always had plans on moving the team to make them more valuable which once again I understand he couldn't say I'm going to move the team he would have lost too much money which I understand but once the lease went year to year he should have came out and told the city I plan on moving my team to LA instead of all the denying and the NFL laying out paths and guidelines for the city to follow only for them to do that and find out it was a waste of time and money

 

[den-the-coach]

You had a owner in Shad Khan who tried to buy the Rams he came out publicly and said that the Rams would stay. But Kroenke used his right of first refusal which is fair and what I would have done too. Kroenke always had plans on moving the team to make them more valuable which once again I understand he couldn't say I'm going to move the team he would have lost too much money which I understand but once the lease went year to year he should have came out and told the city I plan on moving my team to LA instead of all the denying and the NFL laying out paths and guidelines for the city to follow only for them to do that and find out it was a waste of time and money

Excellent Post!

 

[RamInferno]

So no Kroenke and the NFL never intended to stay because the Kroenke deal was too good for them to pass up.

The NFL relocation guideline says that the owner has to do everything he can to stay in the home market and that the home market has to have a viable stadium plan with financing and a show how that city can support a NFL franchise. The city did its part but Kroenke just wanted out its simple

See, we don't disagree on any of this. I'm just saying how I think the Rams and the NFL will argue their case in court.

Kroenke and the NFL didn't intend to stay in St. Louis, but after the RSA told the Rams that they would not implement the arbitration award in 2013, the Rams were under no obligation to negotiate further. At that point they had fulfilled the NFL relocation guidelines' requirement to negation in good faith and to do everything they could to stay in the city. This is because the Rams had been negotiating with the city to fulfill their contractual obligations from the first measuring date in 2005 all the way until the arbitration hearing in 2012. That's seven years of negotiating and the NFL relocation guidelines specify 6 months as being sufficient to satisfy the good faith negotiations requirement. The Rams went so far above and beyond the relocation guidelines it's not even funny. The Rams' lease expressly spelled out what would happen if the first tier clause was not met, how to settle any disputes about what fulfilling the clause meant, and the remedy the Rams had in case the clause was not met. That's important to this case because it means all the new stadium plans that came after the arbitration hearing were considered by the Rams to be an underhanded attempt to force them to stay in St. Louis by manipulating the owners' vote despite the Rams' legal and contractual right to leave.

And the fact that the result of the owners' vote could not be known before the actual vote took place is a key fact in defending against the claims that the Rams move was inevitable and St. Louis was knowingly duped into wasting their money on stadium plans etc. Nobody knew if the Rams would move until the vote took place -- including the NFL, the Rams, Kroenke, Goodell, Jerry Jones, etc.

 

[Dxmissile]

See, we don't disagree on any of this. I'm just saying how I think the Rams and the NFL will argue their case in court.

Kroenke and the NFL didn't intend to stay in St. Louis, but after the RSA told the Rams that they would not implement the arbitration award in 2013, the Rams were under no obligation to negotiate further. At that point they had fulfilled the NFL relocation guidelines' requirement to negation in good faith and to do everything they could to stay in the city. This is because the Rams had been negotiating with the city to fulfill their contractual obligations from the first measuring date in 2005 all the way until the arbitration hearing in 2012. That's seven years of negotiating and the NFL relocation guidelines specify 6 months as being sufficient to satisfy the good faith negotiations requirement. The Rams went so far above and beyond the relocation guidelines it's not even funny. The Rams' lease expressly spelled out what would happen if the first tier clause was not met, how to settle any disputes about what fulfilling the clause meant, and the remedy the Rams had in case the clause was not met. That's important to this case because it means all the new stadium plans that came after the arbitration hearing were considered by the Rams to be an underhanded attempt to force them to stay in St. Louis by manipulating the owners' vote despite the Rams' legal and contractual right to leave.

And the fact that the result of the owners' vote could not be known before the actual vote took place is a key fact in defending against the claims that the Rams move was inevitable and St. Louis was knowingly duped into wasting their money on stadium plans etc. Nobody knew if the Rams would move until the vote took place -- including the NFL, the Rams, Kroenke, Goodell, Jerry Jones, etc.

The relocation guidelines didn't become in effect until after the Rams won the arbitration. Every thing else was about satisfying the first tier clause which is what the Cvc was doing by making those improvements but I think it was in 2010 when Kroenke told the Cvc to not worry about the upgrades that was needed.

So even if the NFL does argue that the Rams did their part it still doesn't nullify that the City by request of the NFL was told to come up with a stadium solution to keep the Rams. The point that the Lawsuit has to make is WHEN did Kroenke knew he was moving the team.

To me that was way back in 2010 when he saw that land in LA but Fisher testimony will tell us when he knew the team was leaving was it when he was hired or shortly after.

The lawsuit is trying to establish a timeline a chain of events up to and after the Rams left

 

[Dxmissile]

I'm not under any illusions that the city is going to win but what I do hope happens is that the NFL take a look at their relocation guidelines and just scrap them because any owner can leave if he has deep enough pockets. Kroenke bought LA

 

[RamInferno]

The relocation guidelines didn't become in effect until after the Rams won the arbitration. Every thing else was about satisfying the first tier clause which is what the Cvc was doing by making those improvements but I think it was in 2010 when Kroenke told the Cvc to not worry about the upgrades that was needed.

So even if the NFL does argue that the Rams did their part it still doesn't nullify that the City by request of the NFL was told to come up with a stadium solution to keep the Rams. The point that the Lawsuit has to make is WHEN did Kroenke knew he was moving the team.

To me that was way back in 2010 when he saw that land in LA but Fisher testimony will tell us when he knew the team was leaving was it when he was hired or shortly after.

The lawsuit is trying to establish a timeline a chain of events up to and after the Rams left

I'd like you to support the claim that the relocation guidelines didn't come into effect until after the Rams won the arbitration. The Rams will certainly argue in court as they did in their relocation statement that after the RSA refused to abide by the arbitration, "Twelve years of fruitless talks culminating in an intense 1 year exchange of proposals in an agreed upon process that cost the parties more than $7 million meets any standard of good faith community engagement. It is only fair and equitable to hold the RSA, the CVC and the Sponsors to their agreements. What would be unfair and inequitable is for the League to require the Rams to do something more in terms of community engagement.... Had St. Louis won that (arbitration) award, the Rams would have been bound to stay in St. Louis." I think this is the argument we'll see in court.

By the way, the Rams waived St. Louis' obligation to fulfill the first tier clause for the 2005 measuring date in 2007. This was before Kroenke took over the team, so it was Georgia who did this. Once Kroenke took over, the Rams had no intention to waive the obligation at the next measuring date in 2015 and initiated a new round of negotiations with the city in 2012.

The NFL told St. Louis that if they wanted to keep the Rams, they would have to come up with a stadium solution -- but this was only because there was a competing and mutually exclusive proposal to move to L.A. by two other teams (Chargers and Raiders), and if the owners decided that all three teams met the relocation guidelines, they still wouldn't be able to approve all three teams to move to L.A. That meant that there was always a chance the Rams would not be approved to move in spite of their legal and contractual right to move and their fulfillment of the relocation guidelines. St. Louis was banking on this result of the vote, but as I've been saying, nobody knew what the result of the vote would be, so St. Louis was always taking a gamble by spending money to put together new stadium plans.

 

[Dxmissile]

I'd like you to support the claim that the relocation guidelines didn't come into effect until after the Rams won the arbitration. The Rams will certainly argue in court as they did in their relocation statement that after the RSA refused to abide by the arbitration, "Twelve years of fruitless talks culminating in an intense 1 year exchange of proposals in an agreed upon process that cost the parties more than $7 million meets any standard of good faith community engagement. It is only fair and equitable to hold the RSA, the CVC and the Sponsors to their agreements. What would be unfair and inequitable is for the League to require the Rams to do something more in terms of community engagement.... Had St. Louis won that (arbitration) award, the Rams would have been bound to stay in St. Louis." I think this is the argument we'll see in court.

By the way, the Rams waived St. Louis' obligation to fulfill the first tier clause for the 2005 measuring date in 2007. This was before Kroenke took over the team, so it was Georgia who did this. Once Kroenke took over, the Rams had no intention to waive the obligation at the next measuring date in 2015 and initiated a new round of negotiations with the city in 2012.

The NFL told St. Louis that if they wanted to keep the Rams, they would have to come up with a stadium solution -- but this was only because there was a competing and mutually exclusive proposal to move to L.A. by two other teams (Chargers and Raiders), and if the owners decided that all three teams met the relocation guidelines, they still wouldn't be able to approve all three teams to move to L.A. That meant that there was always a chance the Rams would not be approved to move in spite of their legal and contractual right to move and their fulfillment of the relocation guidelines. St. Louis was banking on this result of the vote, but as I've been saying, nobody knew what the result of the vote would be, so St. Louis was always taking a gamble by spending money to put together new stadium plans.

Why negotiate when you are still in a contract. The Rams was still in a contract with the city and the CVC until AFTER Arbitration. That's why the Rams released their Formal announcement for the team to move after Arbitration because that's when the lease was expired and allowed the Rams to go month to month. At that point when the Rams made their intentions clear to move and the NFL received their proposal for relocation that's when the clock officially started for the City

Like I said I know Kroenke is going to use that talk like he was working in good faith to keep the team here. Whether you care to admit it or not I'm sure you know that Kroenke was always moving this team. You don't buy land without having a good promise for development. Him and the league and Jerry Jones they was talking and that talk became reality when he bought that land.

Stan is a buisness man through and through and for that I respect the guy but business like this is always conducted behind closed doors with verbal commitment and handshakes

 

[Da-Rock]

I'm not under any illusions that the city is going to win but what I do hope happens is that the NFL take a look at their relocation guidelines and just scrap them because any owner can leave if he has deep enough pockets. Kroenke bought LA

I agree with this. I am originally an LA Rams fan that went through the torture of them moving. I traveled to St. Louis for a game and rooted for the St. Louis Rams over the years. Now they are back in LA. The thing is.....I live in Sacramento, CA.....so both cities are far enough away to make it essentially the same, (Northern Californians try to stay away from Southern California as much as possible

I am simply a "Rams" fan, not an "LA" fan nor a "St.Louis" fan, but I really would like to see the NFL adjust their relocation process.

 

[RamInferno]

I think Stan bought the land fully believing he was going to move. But then something happened that he didn't anticipate and threw those plans into serious doubt. That was when the Chargers and Raiders announced their plans to build a stadium in Carson. After that point, the move was in doubt and nobody knew what the result would be. This includes the full time period of the Task Force and the development of stadium plans in St. Louis.

I'm not buying your assertion that the clock started for the city after the arbitration. That seems to be completely made up and makes no sense. We'll see what the courts think I guess.

 

[Dxmissile]

I think Stan bought the land fully believing he was going to move. But then something happened that he didn't anticipate and threw those plans into serious doubt. That was when the Chargers and Raiders announced their plans to build a stadium in Carson. After that point, the move was in doubt and nobody knew what the result would be. This includes the full time period of the Task Force and the development of stadium plans in St. Louis.

I'm not buying your assertion that the clock started for the city after the arbitration. That seems to be completely made up and makes no sense. We'll see what the courts think I guess.

How doesn't that make sense the Rams were in a lease until 2025 the arbitration ruling made it so the Rams could leave March 1 2015, there was no reason to talk about relocation until after the ruling since the Rams no matter what was in a lease until 2025

 

[Dxmissile]

I agree with this. I am originally an LA Rams fan that went through the torture of them moving. I traveled to St. Louis for a game and rooted for the St. Louis Rams over the years. Now they are back in LA. The thing is.....I live in Sacramento, CA.....so both cities are far enough away to make it essentially the same, (Northern Californians try to stay away from Southern California as much as possible

I am simply a "Rams" fan, not an "LA" fan nor a "St.Louis" fan, but I really would like to see the NFL adjust their relocation process.

I still love this team as if they was still in stl. It doesn't matter to me where they play I just wanna see good football from them again

 

[StealYoGurley]

@flv What were the odds this thread lasted more than one page?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

This explains everything.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/Sports/rams-relocation-statement-010516.pdf

 

[Merlin]

STL stole the team away with a sweetheart deal they couldn't hold themselves to. A deal which they could have upheld to lock the team in STL. Stan called their bluff.

It doesn't need to "go away" because it's not a story. It's sour grapes. Rams and the NFL will win that litigation, if you want to call it that.

 

[bnw]

I choose the win-win-win situation: The Rams play 4 regular season games in LA, 4 regular season games in St. Louis, and Kroenke will still be a savior/icehole to our fan-base.

Deal with this one caveat- the London game is considered an LA home game it being big city and all.

 

[bnw]

That's what the discovery phase is about during trial. And yes Kroenke and Demoff said I repeat said that they knew they was moving back to LA even before the lease expired. They knew they were gone. That's one of the reason why during Discovery that when Fisher say yes Kroenke told me he was moving the team not might but was. We are going to get all the info out and Kroenke Demoff Fisher Grubman Goddell all left paper trails and voice trails because they all came out and said it.

You're simplifying things a little to extreme this is way different then leasing a house. Arbitration was about what is the dollar amount needed to make the stadium top tier when they ruled in the Rams favor it allowed the lease to go month to month. It did not allow for them to leave. The NFL and the relocation committee with the rest of the owners are the only ones that can allow a team to leave. That's why this lawsuit is focusing on the Relocation guidelines and the basis that it was all for naught after statements that was made by league officials and Kroenke after the move was made

Get the money grubbing liars on the record as being the money grubbing liars.:icare:

 

[RocknRam29]

Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. There's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it...

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. There's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it...

I am deshelling shrimp now
Gonna skewer them and place them on the grill
Shrimp is amazing

STEP 1

 

[bnw]

The plan was viable and it's the same type of deal that every other owner has beside jerry. And that's the point really. Kroenke wanted his own palace like his buddy that's why he paid for the entire bill. The city of stl proposal would have been more than enough for any other owner.

This topic shouldn't hurt feeling. I think people misunderstand STL fans we aren't upset that they left it's how the city was played into thinking it was a chance they could stay and then it's the words of Kroenke after he left.

So true!