The Rams are long gone, but St. Louis could still be on the hook for player's 2015 injury
- Thread starter TSFH Fan
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31,317
Yeah, that's a BS requirement, but then the Rams chose to the "sweetheart deal" of low rent while there. The CVC and St Louis got away with this one. But then, the last time I heard the City was pizzed that the Rams still owned Rams Park in Earth City and could sell it and keep the profit. Time to sell/develop it, Mr. Kroenke.....Funny how the people that own the stadium and prevent tenants from modifying it aren't responsible
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31,317
Rams had the option to buy Rams Park for $1, which the St Louis tried to block in 2016. Said Rams Park was worth $19 million back then. Give it to Bush along with $6 million and call it square, and would be a nice FU to the CVC
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_d48166aa-75ee-532a-85e3-8a944a339f3f.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_d48166aa-75ee-532a-85e3-8a944a339f3f.html
Soul Surfer
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 6,973
- Name
- Charles Mazyck
You do have to wonder what the judgment would have been if the Rams were still in St Louis.
I'm betting they would have told Reggie Bush to hit the road.
I'm betting they would have told Reggie Bush to hit the road.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31,317
I dunno...there were a lot of residents who could give a frick about the NFL or the Rams in that city. Sure, there were a lot of Rams fans but there were also a bunch of peeps who thought the NFL was a parasite that took dollars from what they wanted to spend them on. Mostly because of the publicly funded stadium issue, which they hated. Just saying, those people would be on juries like this, as much as Rams fans would have been..
Soul Surfer
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 6,973
- Name
- Charles Mazyck
I am betting that there would have been enough Rams fans to lock up the jury.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,149
First thing that I thought of when I heard the announcement this morning was what kind of jury made the decision. I would liked to have been in the courtroom for jury selection. I wonder if the plaintiff lawyer asked what they thought of the Rams moving to LA. 12 angry men?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,844
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31,317
Naw...I thought the jury got it right, just that the CVC deserved to share the blame with the Rams, methinks...But a contract is a contract....
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
The law is written very strangely, basically saying unless the city owns 100% of something they can't be held liable at all. Sounds like something that can be challenged in court, and probably should because it doesn't seem right to me, especially since the Rams said they tried but the CVC stonewalled them with red tape.
That being said, it's not like Stan can't take the hit, and he probably has insurance to cover it anyway, so meh.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31,317
Don't disagree that the Rams will try to appeal, but I am sure whatever agreements were signed between Georgia's Rams and the CVC, the language was there in small print at signing...
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,261
- Name
- Niall
This is absolutely the right decision and I think our love for the rams may be blinkering a few people. It was unsafe, it was avoidable and it was predictable and therefore someone is liable. Through the court process they've obviously determined that was the Rams. Pay him his due and move on.
Memento
Your (Somewhat) Friendly Neighborhood Authoress.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 18,807
- Name
- Jemma
As a St. Louisan, I don't think that this should be solely the Rams' burden to bear. The EJD didn't exactly fix things after Josh McCown got injured before Bush's ACL tear. If anything, they should bear half of it.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,261
- Name
- Niall
I assume this question was covered during the case and that is why the judge threw out the case against the other parties. There must have been wording in the various contracts that clarified that this was solely the rams responsibility.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,949
I haven't seen what the appeal is on. Is it that only the Rams are responsible? Is it that punitive is 150% of damages? Both?
Punitive is what seems out of whack to me. It had been like that for 20 years, with no injuries until the week before. I also suspect that it was up to NFL standards, which means that there is more than 160 games of history to having conditions like that. Punitive is supposed to be if the responsible party has been negligent - if it's industry standard behavior that has not historically produced injuries, then punishing the Rams severely seems out of whack.
Normally, the full judgement has to be placed in escrow before an appeal is made. So the Rams have paid out already, but Bush hasn't seen the money. I suspect the Rams will file to reduce both their share and the punitive, and then be willing to negotiate the punitive downward to something closer to what it likely would end up as in the appeal - and punitive quite often is reduced on appeal.
Punitive is what seems out of whack to me. It had been like that for 20 years, with no injuries until the week before. I also suspect that it was up to NFL standards, which means that there is more than 160 games of history to having conditions like that. Punitive is supposed to be if the responsible party has been negligent - if it's industry standard behavior that has not historically produced injuries, then punishing the Rams severely seems out of whack.
Normally, the full judgement has to be placed in escrow before an appeal is made. So the Rams have paid out already, but Bush hasn't seen the money. I suspect the Rams will file to reduce both their share and the punitive, and then be willing to negotiate the punitive downward to something closer to what it likely would end up as in the appeal - and punitive quite often is reduced on appeal.