The lawsuit

[12intheBox]

And the damages are?

Minimal - which is why they seek class action status.

 

[fearsomefour]

A main difference between your analogy and the Rams case is that it was the Rams who sold the goods - the Rams who profited off of them. No one is suing the Rams because they bought a Spaulding Football from a sporting goods store and otherwise wouldn't have.

The point of this law is so that companies can't deceive the public into purchasing their products - and while you may not agree - that's what this suit is about.




The reason it matters that people are throwing out their stuff is that it shows that when a franchise moves, the stuff loses worth in the eyes of the purchaser. And while you may think this is lame, it's not just a St. Louis and Rams things. Same thing happened in Cleveland, it happened in LA, it happens virtually every time a franchise moves. More to the point, the history of this practice puts owners on notice of how their location affects a fans purchasing preferences.

You and I both know that had the Rams been upfront about their desire to move from the time those desires began (which sounds like 2002 ish but certainly once the ING property was bought) that people would not have given up their $$ for tickets and merch.

This suit says that the Rams knew this and misled STL to induce people to continue to come and spend.

As for the statements themselves - how careful were the Rams in what they said? Is it just puffery or were representations made?

Consider this one from 2012:


View: https://twitter.com/kdemoff/status/160527458809020416

Yeah.
Intent is not going to be proven.
The PSL thing is sort of interesting, depends on the wording of course.
Outside of that I see nothing because outside of that there was no future "thing" tied to a purchase. A person paid for a game or a season or a jersey....that purchase did not come with the promise of future anything.
It's like becoming loyal to anything else....a local bar, a deli or whatever....then saying I would have never eaten lunch as said deli twice a week for five years if I knew the owner was going to sell/move or whatever.
The team is tied to the city. Feelings and loyalties run deep, I get that.
This is just empty however into opinion.

 

[12intheBox]

Yeah.
Intent is not going to be proven.
The PSL thing is sort of interesting, depends on the wording of course.
Outside of that I see nothing because outside of that there was no future "thing" tied to a purchase. A person paid for a game or a season or a jersey....that purchase did not come with the promise of future anything.
It's like becoming loyal to anything else....a local bar, a deli or whatever....then saying I would have never eaten lunch as said deli twice a week for five years if I knew the owner was going to sell/move or whatever.
The team is tied to the city. Feelings and loyalties run deep, I get that.
This is just empty however into opinion.

Yet history has shown us that many buyers consider the location of the team to be a determining factor. As I said, when a team leaves - many many fans trash their merch. We can debate whether they should or not - but they do - and the franchises who sell the stuff know it.

Ask yourself, why would the Rams make statements that they intend to try to stay when they - in fact - had no such intention?

The answer is simple - they wanted to increase sales - tickets and merchandise- while they were still in STL. Without those statements, people may have spent their $$ elsewhere. And that kind of deception is exactly what this suit is about.

But really, it's a chance to potentially depose SK and KD.

 

[OldSchool]

But really, it's a chance to potentially depose SK and KD.

Heh keep aiming high! Good luck with a baseless lawsuit trying to take out an NFL owner.

 

[12intheBox]

Heh keep aiming high! Good luck with a baseless lawsuit trying to take out an NFL owner.

Depose doesn't mean take out. It means put him under oath and make him answer questions. And yeah, I doubt it will get that far either - but thats the aim.

And its not baseless. It may be petty, it may be sour grapes - but the conduct of the Rams is at least arguably covered by this law - imho.

 

[Akrasian]

Depose doesn't mean take out. It means put him under oath and make him answer questions. And yeah, I doubt it will get that far either - but thats the aim.

And its not baseless. It may be petty, it may be sour grapes - but the conduct of the Rams is at least arguably covered by this law - imho.

Yeah, SK on the stand would go something like this:

"I wanted the Rams to stay in St Louis, if the lease was fully honored. That is what I told my staff like Demoff also. However, like any prudent businessman I kept my options open, which included buying land in another city that I felt would be a good second option for the Rams, and which I felt was a good investment with or without the Rams moving there. When the lease was not actually honored, and I was expected to contribute a large amount of money for upgrades that I was not supposed to be responsible for, I ended up having to go with plan B. Any damage to PSL owners or others could and should have been avoided by the lease being honored."

Since arbitration did find that the lease was not being honored, case would be dismissed with prejudice. The attorneys know this - it's a nuisance suit, taken by the suing attorneys hoping that the Rams would find it cheaper to give them a token amount of money to go away.

 

[12intheBox]

Yeah, SK on the stand would go something like this:

"I wanted the Rams to stay in St Louis, if the lease was fully honored. That is what I told my staff like Demoff also. However, like any prudent businessman I kept my options open, which included buying land in another city that I felt would be a good second option for the Rams, and which I felt was a good investment with or without the Rams moving there. When the lease was not actually honored, and I was expected to contribute a large amount of money for upgrades that I was not supposed to be responsible for, I ended up having to go with plan B. Any damage to PSL owners or others could and should have been avoided by the lease being honored."

Since arbitration did find that the lease was not being honored, case would be dismissed with prejudice. The attorneys know this - it's a nuisance suit, taken by the suing attorneys hoping that the Rams would find it cheaper to give them a token amount of money to go away.

You think he would testify to that under oath?

If so - do you think that's the truth or he would perjure himself?

Keep in mind, this suit isn't challenging whether or not he had the right to move the franchise.

 

[fearsomefour]

Yet history has shown us that many buyers consider the location of the team to be a determining factor. As I said, when a team leaves - many many fans trash their merch. We can debate whether they should or not - but they do - and the franchises who sell the stuff know it.

Ask yourself, why would the Rams make statements that they intend to try to stay when they - in fact - had no such intention?

The answer is simple - they wanted to increase sales - tickets and merchandise- while they were still in STL. Without those statements, people may have spent their $$ elsewhere. And that kind of deception is exactly what this suit is about.

But really, it's a chance to potentially depose SK and KD.

I don't think whether fans should or not doesn't matter. It really has no relevance on anything but their feelings, which legally, mean nothing.
Can it be proven the Rams were doing nothin to stay in St Louis?
Probably not. They lived up to the terms of the lease and negotiated with the city....now we both agree it was their true intention to move and they probably viewed the St Louis stuff as a backup plan.
They can easily say they wanted and intended to stay in St Louis but explored other options (which they have the right to do)....they can probably prove that angle much easier that someone from the outside trying to prove their intent.
I would amazed if this went anywhere at all.

 

[Akrasian]

You think he would testify to that under oath?

If so - do you think that's the truth or he would perjure himself?

Keep in mind, this suit isn't challenging whether or not he had the right to move the franchise.

I think it's either the truth or an unprovable lie. He may have always intended to move - but unless he put it on paper, he did what is necessary to show that the blame wasn't on him - he followed the procedure, while also having a backup plan. And keep on mind, that besides the likelihood that the real estate was a good investment with or without the Rams, it could also be spun as putting pressure to have the lease fulfilled. "We have other options, if you won't honor the contract."

He would rather not go on the stand I'm sure - but unless he has put stuff on paper, which I doubt, I don't think he'd hesitate. Having the case thrown out like is the probability would be good for his rep - losing it OR settling it would hurt it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You think he would testify to that under oath?

If so - do you think that's the truth or he would perjure himself?

Keep in mind, this suit isn't challenging whether or not he had the right to move the franchise.

Even if he wanted to move the team as soon as he bought them, there would need to be proof of that, and even then he could just blame it on uncertainty if the league would approve. There's way too many ways to get out, wouldn't pin it on him.

 

[12intheBox]

I don't think whether fans should or not doesn't matter. It really has no relevance on anything but their feelings, which legally, mean nothing.
Can it be proven the Rams were doing nothin to stay in St Louis?
Probably not. They lived up to the terms of the lease and negotiated with the city....now we both agree it was their true intention to move and they probably viewed the St Louis stuff as a backup plan.
They can easily say they wanted and intended to stay in St Louis but explored other options (which they have the right to do)....they can probably prove that angle much easier that someone from the outside trying to prove their intent.
I would amazed if this went anywhere at all.

The reason the fans feelings matter - in this case - is because the fans are the purchasers. The company is the team trying to sell to the purchasers. So the known (or reasonably should have been known) feelings of the fans are quite relevant to this.

The company thinks that the fans are more likely to support the team if they publicly state an intention to remain in that market - or at least that is what they should think based on historical data because it is, in fact, the case.

And look guys, I'm not saying this thing is going to bring Kroenke crashing down - I doubt it even registers in the top 1000 on his list of worries at this point. But let's not act like Stan really hasn't been hell bent on LA for a long time now. He has admitted as much already.

But I do like the message a suit like this could send to sports teams who are deternined to switch markets. Be upfront with your fans. You may lose money on the short term by doing so, but you won't be manipulating the consumers.

The real lawsuit - if it comes - would be from the city and would name both the NFL and SK. I'm sure both sides have been looking closely at the various twists and turns that bad boy could take.

That's the one where the relo guidelines, the CVC lease, the ability to fund bonds, etc all come into play.

As for whether they put things in writing - this is something that has been in the works for anywhere from 4 years all the back to 1995 - depending on who you ask. I'll bet there is a ton of crap in writing - boxes and boxes and boxes of it a with lawyers copied to try and make the juicy writings provileged. You don't pull this kind of thing off without written communication - it would be impossible.

 

[Akrasian]

As for whether they put things in writing - this is something that has been in the works for anywhere from 4 years all the back to 1995 - depending on who you ask. I'll bet there is a ton of crap in writing - boxes and boxes and boxes of it a with lawyers copied to try and make the juicy writings provileged. You don't pull this kind of thing off without written communication - it would be impossible.

Ah, but when I talked about whether it was writing, I wasn't referring to having another option - I was referring to something saying that the Rams had zero intention of staying in St Louis. Since Kroenke's defense would presumably be that LA planning was a matter of looking at and developing options - of course the development of the alternative options would be in writing. What WON'T be in writing is Kroenke saying that he is just stringing SL along, and is going to do everything possible to break the lease, and the years of negotiations are all in bad faith. And THAT is necessary for the lawsuit to have any hope of succeeding.

 

[12intheBox]

Ah, but when I talked about whether it was writing, I wasn't referring to having another option - I was referring to something saying that the Rams had zero intention of staying in St Louis. Since Kroenke's defense would presumably be that LA planning was a matter of looking at and developing options - of course the development of the alternative options would be in writing. What WON'T be in writing is Kroenke saying that he is just stringing SL along, and is going to do everything possible to break the lease, and the years of negotiations are all in bad faith. And THAT is necessary for the lawsuit to have any hope of succeeding.

I don't think it is necessary to have such a writing- but it would make for a pretty nice Perry Mason moment.

 

[fearsomefour]

The reason the fans feelings matter - in this case - is because the fans are the purchasers. The company is the team trying to sell to the purchasers. So the known (or reasonably should have been known) feelings of the fans are quite relevant to this.

The company thinks that the fans are more likely to support the team if they publicly state an intention to remain in that market - or at least that is what they should think based on historical data because it is, in fact, the case.

And look guys, I'm not saying this thing is going to bring Kroenke crashing down - I doubt it even registers in the top 1000 on his list of worries at this point. But let's not act like Stan really hasn't been hell bent on LA for a long time now. He has admitted as much already.

But I do like the message a suit like this could send to sports teams who are deternined to switch markets. Be upfront with your fans. You may lose money on the short term by doing so, but you won't be manipulating the consumers.

The real lawsuit - if it comes - would be from the city and would name both the NFL and SK. I'm sure both sides have been looking closely at the various twists and turns that bad boy could take.

That's the one where the relo guidelines, the CVC lease, the ability to fund bonds, etc all come into play.

As for whether they put things in writing - this is something that has been in the works for anywhere from 4 years all the back to 1995 - depending on who you ask. I'll bet there is a ton of crap in writing - boxes and boxes and boxes of it a with lawyers copied to try and make the juicy writings provileged. You don't pull this kind of thing off without written communication - it would be impossible.

I enjoy the discussion but I just don't see it.
A fan saying they bought tickets for the week 5 of this season (or whatever) because they thought the team was stayin in town forever is just silly. They paid for a ticket/popcorn/ parking/jersey or whatever and received what they paid for. Pretty much the end of that story.
As for the dealings and negotiations between the Rams and the city, that may be a different story.
As usual, the fans don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[LesBaker]

I went to find out if losangelesrams.com had been registered and came across this:

http://kplr11.com/2016/01/14/rams-com-owner-wants-650000-for-domain-name/

I got a little chuckle out of that. Then I went to GoDaddy because if Thelosangelesrams.com was available I was going to take it. It isn't and neither is losangelesrams.net or thelosangelesrams.net. losangelesrams.biz is available. You can do a whois to see who owns them.

Depending on the state a case could be made that PSL monies would have to be in part refunded if it could be proven (and it can be in this case) that the Rams were being deceitful about their intentions. Merchandise isn't going to be involved I wouldn't think.

If I had recently purchased season tickets, meaning since SK bought out the kids, I'd want at least a prorated refund. If he had any class, DELETED hje would figure out a way to give some of that money back. IMO he stole it.

 

[LesBaker]

Yeah.
Intent is not going to be proven.
The PSL thing is sort of interesting, depends on the wording of course.
Outside of that I see nothing because outside of that there was no future "thing" tied to a purchase. A person paid for a game or a season or a jersey....that purchase did not come with the promise of future anything.
It's like becoming loyal to anything else....a local bar, a deli or whatever....then saying I would have never eaten lunch as said deli twice a week for five years if I knew the owner was going to sell/move or whatever.
The team is tied to the city. Feelings and loyalties run deep, I get that.
This is just empty however into opinion.

What if said deli charged you for the right to eat/buy lunch there?

 

[RamFan503]

What if said deli charged you for the right to eat/buy lunch there?

Pretty bad analogy there Les. No one would ever assume a restaurant will be ANYWHERE the following year - maybe even the next month.

 

[RamFan503]

I went to find out if losangelesrams.com had been registered and came across this:

http://kplr11.com/2016/01/14/rams-com-owner-wants-650000-for-domain-name/

I got a little chuckle out of that. Then I went to GoDaddy because if Thelosangelesrams.com was available I was going to take it. It isn't and neither is losangelesrams.net or thelosangelesrams.net. losangelesrams.biz is available. You can do a whois to see who owns them.

Depending on the state a case could be made that PSL monies would have to be in part refunded if it could be proven (and it can be in this case) that the Rams were being deceitful about their intentions. Merchandise isn't going to be involved I wouldn't think.

If I had recently purchased season tickets, meaning since SK bought out the kids, I'd want at least a prorated refund. If he had any class, which we know now he doesn't, hje would figure out a way to give some of that money back. IMO he stole it.

It generally doesn't work that way anymore. I forget what company sued and won that changed it all. Several years ago people were buying up all kinds of web names in the hopes of cashing in on big companies wanting to buy them. The courts have ruled in the favor of the established businesses unless the person owning the site can demonstrate an existing need for the domain name. In other words, if someone were to buy www.coke.com, they better deal coke. Anyway, companies have sued to get domain names and won. I would highly doubt that anyone could make a case that their business is the Los Angeles Rams in any fashion unless they are the Los Angeles Rams.

 

[RamFan503]

I went to find out if losangelesrams.com had been registered and came across this:

http://kplr11.com/2016/01/14/rams-com-owner-wants-650000-for-domain-name/

I got a little chuckle out of that. Then I went to GoDaddy because if Thelosangelesrams.com was available I was going to take it. It isn't and neither is losangelesrams.net or thelosangelesrams.net. losangelesrams.biz is available. You can do a whois to see who owns them.

Depending on the state a case could be made that PSL monies would have to be in part refunded if it could be proven (and it can be in this case) that the Rams were being deceitful about their intentions. Merchandise isn't going to be involved I wouldn't think.

If I had recently purchased season tickets, meaning since SK bought out the kids, I'd want at least a prorated refund. If he had any class, DELETED hje would figure out a way to give some of that money back. IMO he stole it.

Les - I'm going to have to ask you to stop with the constant derogatory remarks toward ownership and KD. I get that you don't like the way they handled this but our policy has never changed on this and it is not going to change now.

 

[ReddingRam]

I think the one thing that might go in the Rams favor on the web URL thing is, they still all this time have owned the rights to all things "Los Angeles Rams"