Can St. Louis Rams PSL Holders Buy L.A. Season Tickets & other StL PSL isssues

This topic has 15 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by InvaderRam.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

Author

Posts
January 22, 2016 at 10:18 pm #37893
bnw
Blocked
Case For St. Louis Rams PSL Holders To Buy L.A. Season Tickets

By: Michael Kernan 9d

http://www.thepostgame.com/daily-take/201601/st-louis-rams-psl-fans-tickets-los-angeles-stadium-nfl

The Rams are the first NFL team to move in the PSL era. What does that mean for PSL holders? Can St. Louis PSL holders buy tickets to Rams games in Los Angeles? Does the PSL move with the team?

Here is some background on PSL for context: Sports teams constantly need to find ways to innovate and make money. One in recent times has been the personal seat license, or PSL.

St. Louis Rams Fans

It is an agreement that entitles the holder to the right to buy season tickets to their team. Like all contracts, the language of the agreement is the starting place. But the Rams organization have done a few things that would suggest that PSL holders in St. Louis may have a decent argument that they can buy season tickets in Los Angeles.

The PSL is the right to buy Rams season tickets. It is transferable, meaning the holder can sell the seat license to someone else if they no longer wish to purchase season tickets. But it is the buying of season tickets that dictates control: This means if the seat license holder chooses not to sell the seat licenses and does not renew the season tickets, the holder forfeits the license back to the team. Note, the license does not go back to the stadium.

The Rams say the PSL is a right to buy for “all future seasons.”

According to the St. Louis Rams, the PSL is the right to buy season tickets to Rams games. It states that fans can:

“Buy PSLs from a current season ticket holder & become the new season ticket holder for those exact seats for all future seasons.”
It is unclear when the language of “those exact seats” was added, and if it was added after the Rams began looking at moving. We reached out to the Rams for comment on this issue, and they did not respond to questions of when the language was added, if it was added or why it was added.

Note, this representation is being made, technically, by a Rams agent, “STR Marketplace,” who according to its own website “builds and operates team-branded websites in partnership with professional sports teams.” Regardless, in the law, they would have ostensible authority.

Note that it does not state all future seasons that the Rams play in the Edward Jones Dome. Thus, if you are a Rams PSL holder, and if Row 1, Seats 10 and 11 are your tickets, can you buy Row 1, Seats 10 and 11 at the new Rams stadium in Los Angeles?

The Rams first sold a PSL when they moved to St. Louis in 1995, but their initial games were not even played at the stadium currently known as Edward Jones Dome. Those were played at Busch Stadium (the St. Louis Cardinals baseball stadium). The Rams did not play a game in the stadium known as Edward Jones Dome until November 12, 1995. This would be evidence that the PSL is tied to the Rams themselves and not the particular structure.

Rams Fans

Why is it a big deal?

In St. Louis, 46,000 fans paid between $250 and $4,500 for PSLs. Whether they can buy tickets in Los Angeles with that PSL is a big deal, because the value of the PSL, much like the value of the franchise, will increase astronomically in a move to Los Angeles.

According to Business Insider, the Rams owner Stan Kroenke would see his team rise in value from $930 million to around $3.5 billion, and possibly as high as $5 billion.

Shouldn’t the purchasers of Rams PSLs, loyal Rams fans who bought season tickets and who are losing their team, also participate in that success? When the Rams move, there is a case they have a legal obligation to share that success with their PSL holders in St. Louis. And there is certainly a moral obligation to do so.

When they move, the Rams should allow PSL holders to sell their PSLs on the open market to the highest bidder in Los Angeles. Or, the Rams should buy back the PSLs from the massive increase in money the Rams are making from the move. And the NFL, in the spirit of the NFL, should make them make it so.

(12 years straight of crap product and still had 46,000 PSLs held in a city he trashed as not being economically viable for the NFL! I hope StanK gets burned big. Time for a bigger loan!)
- This topic was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.
- This topic was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.
- This topic was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by zn.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.
January 22, 2016 at 11:03 pm #37897

zn
Moderator

B, all articles have to have links with them (I put one in this time). Thanks.

January 23, 2016 at 9:06 am #37913

bnw
Blocked

OK sorry. Thanks.

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 23, 2016 at 11:24 am #37921

zn
Moderator

Rams PSLs contained language regarding relocation, lawsuits

Mike Florio

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/23/rams-psls-contained-language-regarding-relocation-lawsuits/

As expected, the PSL agreements signed by folks who held the right to purchase tickets to Rams games in St. Louis contained language aimed at allowing the team to leave town — and preventing the PSL holders from suing.

Randy Karraker of 101 ESPN in St. Louis forwarded to PFT a copy of Section 12 of his PSL agreement, which states: “Licensee acknowledges that this Agreement remains valid only as long as NFL football is played at the Stadium by the Rams, up to a maximum of thirty (30) years. Licensee acknowledges that Licensee has no claim against the Rams with respect to this [PSL] and/or its termination whatsoever. Licensee understands and acknowledges the possibility that the Rams may not play its gams in the Stadium or St. Louis for the entire term contemplated by this License. Licensee expressly agrees not to sue the Rams for damages or injunctive relief relates to this [PSL], including without limitation should the Rams not play its home games in the Stadium or in St. Louis for any reason.”

The Rams will argue that this language defeats the lawsuit filed by PSL holders who believe they have rights to purchase tickets to Rams games through 2025. The plaintiffs likely will claim in response that Section 12 should not be enforced, since the entire agreement is what the law calls a “contract of adhesion.” The term refers to a contract that provides no opportunity to engage in meaningful negotiation and requires consumers to agree to any and all potentially onerous terms in order to purchase the thing they want to buy.

Ultimately, the question will turn on the manner in which a court in Missouri handles the situation. With the Rams leaving Missouri, that dynamic could work against the team, forcing it to potentially honor the rights that thousands had secured to attend Rams games for another decade.

January 24, 2016 at 7:38 am #37959

GreatRamNTheSky
Participant

I think the language is very clear to any unbiased Judge. The three who filed the suit have no case.

Grits

January 24, 2016 at 7:40 am #37960
GreatRamNTheSky
Participant
Licensee acknowledges that Licensee has no claim against the Rams with respect to this [PSL] and/or its termination whatsoever. Licensee understands and acknowledges the possibility that the Rams may not play its gams in the Stadium or St. Louis for the entire term contemplated by this License. Licensee expressly agrees not to sue the Rams for damages or injunctive relief relates to this [PSL], including without limitation should the Rams not play its home games in the Stadium or in St. Louis for any reason.”

This language alone defeats any law suit on behalf of PSL owners.

Grits
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by zn.
January 24, 2016 at 9:41 am #37971

bnw
Blocked

“The plaintiffs likely will claim in response that Section 12 should not be enforced, since the entire agreement is what the law calls a “contract of adhesion.” The term refers to a contract that provides no opportunity to engage in meaningful negotiation and requires consumers to agree to any and all potentially onerous terms in order to purchase the thing they want to buy.”

Take it to that county on the east side in down state IL and watch StanK send his toupe into orbit!

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 24, 2016 at 10:12 am #37974

InvaderRam
Moderator

i’d like to see the fans win for once.

cuz we know this move ain’t for the fans including the los angeles fans.

besides i think it’d be awesome if the rams had to play at the coliseum for the next ten years! ha!

January 24, 2016 at 10:27 am #37976

bnw
Blocked

InvaderRam wrote:

i’d like to see the fans win for once.

cuz we know this move ain’t for the fans including the los angeles fans.

besides i think it’d be awesome if the rams had to play at the coliseum for the next ten years! ha!

Such irony would be delicious. Make it 18 years and that is what happened with Bidwill’s move to AZ although sun devil Stadium has to be worse than the LA Coliseum, right?

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 24, 2016 at 10:43 am #37979

InvaderRam
Moderator

i like the coliseum. i know i’m in the minority here, but it’s got charm and loads of history and it’s right smack in the middle of los angeles – inglewood is close but it’s not in the heart of los angeles.

just needs to be cleaned up a little but i have no interest in corporate luxury suites or what not or 100 yard flat screen tvs. and most games i’ll be watching at home anyways.

January 24, 2016 at 10:51 am #37980

bnw
Blocked

InvaderRam wrote:

i like the coliseum. i know i’m in the minority here, but it’s got charm and loads of history and it’s right smack in the middle of los angeles – inglewood is close but it’s not in the heart of los angeles.

just needs to be cleaned up a little but i have no interest in corporate luxury suites or what not or 100 yard flat screen tvs. and most games i’ll be watching at home anyways.

I can understand that. Location is everything and tradition counts for something. Can do without the luxury suites but the huge flat screen TV would really be nice!

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 24, 2016 at 12:16 pm #37982

Zooey
Participant

I like the Coliseum, too. I always thought Candlestick park was fine, too. I liked the forum.

I can’t think of a stadium/arena I’ve been in where I once thought, “Wow, this needs hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades.” They have all been perfectly serviceable.

New stadiums are produced by vanity and greed, not necessity. That’s for damn sure.

January 24, 2016 at 1:08 pm #37986

bnw
Blocked

Zooey wrote:

I can’t think of a stadium/arena I’ve been in where I once thought, “Wow, this needs hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades.” They have all been perfectly serviceable.

New stadiums are produced by vanity and greed, not necessity. That’s for damn sure.

So true. I remember when the ED was to be an indoor stadium and thinking how can anything top this? Watching football outside in St.Louis in December can by very nasty and the 70 degrees inside the dome sold tickets to be sure. Look at the Packers that sell out every year in that stadium in that weather! Can’t convince them they are missing out by not having a top 25% venue BS. Fiscal sanity always depends upon who is paying the freight and in their case it is the season ticket holders.

When StanK’s stadium no longer is in the top 25% will he move his team? 😉

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 24, 2016 at 1:17 pm #37989

Zooey
Participant

bnw wrote:

So true. I remember when the ED was to be an indoor stadium and thinking how can anything top this? Watching football outside in St.Louis in December can by very nasty and the 70 degrees inside the dome sold tickets to be sure. Look at the Packers that sell out every year in that stadium in that weather! Can’t convince them they are missing out by not having a top 25% venue BS. Fiscal sanity always depends upon who is paying the freight and in their case it is the season ticket holders.

Exactly. When the Ed (TWA) first opened, is was this glorious stadium.

15 years later, it was a total piece of shit, and always had been. That’s the icing on the cake to me. People write about the dome like it ALWAYS sucked. It is so ridiculous. I mean, you would think the place had splintery wooden benches and outhouses.

January 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm #37991

bnw
Blocked

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

So true. I remember when the ED was to be an indoor stadium and thinking how can anything top this? Watching football outside in St.Louis in December can by very nasty and the 70 degrees inside the dome sold tickets to be sure. Look at the Packers that sell out every year in that stadium in that weather! Can’t convince them they are missing out by not having a top 25% venue BS. Fiscal sanity always depends upon who is paying the freight and in their case it is the season ticket holders.

Exactly. When the Ed (TWA) first opened, is was this glorious stadium.

15 years later, it was a total piece of shit, and always had been. That’s the icing on the cake to me. People write about the dome like it ALWAYS sucked. It is so ridiculous. I mean, you would think the place had splintery wooden benches and outhouses.

It is ridiculous. Granted on a beautiful day the outside game is great. But is the viewing really better than in the dome? I say no. Not even close. The nosebleed seats in the dome are much better than the nosebleed seats in those other large stadiums.

Te biggest knock against the ED is where it is located since tailgating was never good there. I think that was unfortunately overlooked and soured a lot of people visiting wanting to include a good tailgating experience.

The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

Sprinkles are for winners.

January 24, 2016 at 1:40 pm #37992
InvaderRam
Moderator
i haven’t been to the ed jones dome in over 10 years, but i’m sure it is completely fine. qualcomm stadium seemed fine to me as well, but what do i know?

the only thing about candlestick park was that some of the seating was a little awkward with it being a baseball stadium and everything. but otherwise a fine stadium especially for watching baseball.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by InvaderRam.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by InvaderRam.
Author

Posts