Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › St. Louis suing NFL over Rams' relocation
- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 13, 2017 at 12:03 am #67355
znModeratorSt. Louis suing NFL over Rams’ relocation
St. Louis city, St. Louis county and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority are suing the National Football League over the relocation of the Rams 15 months ago, Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports..
The 52-page suit filed Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court lists the National Football League and all 32 NFL clubs as defendants and seeks damages and restitution of profits.
“The Rams, the NFL, through its member teams, and the owners have violated the obligations and standards governing team relocations” because the Rams failed to meet league relocation rules, the suit claims. As such, the league has breached its contractual duties owed the plaintiffs, the suit says.
The Rams and the NFL made intentionally false statements, unjustly enriched themselves, the plaintiffs say, and interfered with business expectations.
The suit claims St. Louis has lost an estimated $1.85 million to $3.5 million a year in amusement and ticket tax revenue with the departure of the Rams. It says the city also has lost about $7.5 million in property tax and $1.4 million in sales tax revenue, plus “millions” in earning taxes.
Although it doesn’t provide dollar amounts for St Louis County, the suit says the county has lost out on hotel tax, property tax, and sales tax revenue because of the departure of the Rams.
The suit contains five counts, or causes for action:
• Breach of contract (against all defendants).
• Unjust enrichment (against all defendants).
• Fraudulent misrepresentation (against the Rams and team owner Stan Kroenke).
• Fraudulent misrepresentation (against all defendants).
• Tortious interference with business expectancy (against all defendants except the Rams). This last count basically alleges that the NFL and the other 31 teams “intentionally interfered” with the business relationship between the St. Louis plaintiffs and the Rams by approving the relocation.
The league’s relocation rules were established in 1984 in response to a court recommendation to the NFL to avoid antitrust liability. The rules call on teams to work diligently and in good faith to remain in their home community, stating that teams cannot relocate unless the relocation policy is satisfied.
Included is part of a 2010 Post-Dispatch interview with Kroenke in which he said: “I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis. I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. . . . People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted.”
Another example came in 2014 from Rams executive Kevin Demoff after Kroenke bought land in Inglewood, Calif., that became part of the eventual site of the LA Rams’ proposed stadium: “I promise you, Stan is looking at lots of pieces of land around the world right now and none of them are for football stadiums.”
The suit details work the plaintiffs did, “in reliance” on such statements on St. Louis’ riverfront stadium project on the north side of downtown. Included was the assembly of land for the stadium site, hiring of architects, consultants and lawyers.
Those costs totaled more than $16 million after the NFL approved the Rams’ relocation on Jan. 12, 2016, according to Post-Dispatch reports.
Further, the suit cites a Demoff interview given to Los Angeles media during which he said he “always dreamed that he could be part of bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles” and said Kroenke told him in the summer of 2013 that he had found “an unbelievable site” for a football stadium in the Los Angeles area. Namely, the Inglewood site.
The suit was filed Wednesday by the Clayton law firm of Blitz, Bardgett and Deutsch and has been in the works for about two years. Even before the relocation vote, information was being gathered for a potential suit. Attorney Bob Blitz was part of the effort to build the north riverfront stadium and keep the Rams in St. Louis.
The suit lists three pages of examples in which the Rams “made false statements regarding the team’s intent to engage in good faith negotiations.”
April 13, 2017 at 10:07 am #67363znModeratorSt. Louis suing Rams, NFL for leaving for Los Angeles
Vincent Bonsignore
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170412/st-louis-suing-rams-nfl-for-leaving-for-los-angeles
It’s been more than a year since the National Football League approved the Rams’ relocation from St. Louis to Los Angeles.
And now St. Louis wants payback.
The city and county of St. Louis and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) filed a 52-page lawsuit Wednesday against the NFL and its 32 teams seeking damages and restitution of profits over the loss of the Rams.
The suit accuses the NFL and the Rams of violating the league’s relocation policies put in place in 1984 to avoid antitrust liability for any future franchise relocations.
You can read the entire lawsuit here.
Among the specific accusations, the suit claims the NFL:
• Failed to require the Rams to meet its “primary obligation … to advance the interests of the League in its home territory” including “maximizing fan support.”
• Allowed relocation when the Ram’s “viability in its home territory” was not “threatened.”
• Failed to require the Rams to “work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territory.”
• Failed to provide the notice of relocation, statement of reasons, and accompanying material to the RSA or home market in a timely fashion to allow Plaintiffs to respond adequately to the “proposed transfer.”
• Failed to have any notice of relocation published in newspapers of general circulation and failed to require the Rams to address “specifically” “each of the factors” identified in the Relocation Policy.
The suit also accuses the Rams and owner Stan Kroenke of fraudulent misrepresentation and the NFL – specifically Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones – of intentionally interfering with the business relationship between the Rams and St. Louis’ by “encouraging, promoting, and conspiring with the Rams to develop a plan to relocate the Rams to Los Angeles and convincing the other member-teams to approve the relocation.”
“There is no legitimate basis for this litigation,” an NFL spokesman said. “While we understand the disappointment of the St. Louis fans and the community, we worked diligently with local and state officials in a process that was honest and fair at all times.”
A Rams spokeseman said the club does not comment on pending litigation.
According to the suit, St. Louis has lost between $1.85 million and $3.5 million in amusement and ticket tax revenue since the Rams left before the 2016 season and $7.5 million in property tax and $1.4 million in sales tax revenue. It also claims the departure of the Rams has resulted in in hotel tax, property tax, and sales tax revenue.
The Rams played 21 seasons in St. Louis after relocating there from Los Angeles in 1994, but began looking a new home after the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission declined an arbitrators ruling to pay $700 million to renovate the Edward Jones Dome in 2013.
By declining the arbitrators decision, St. Louis triggered an early out clause in the Rams Edward Jones Dome lease and freed the Rams to look elsewhere for a new home.
Ironically, that out clause was negotiated into the original lease as part of the deal to lure the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis. Essentially it stipulated St. Louis was financially responsible for making sure the Edward Jones Dome remained a first-tier NFL venue and that the Rams could convert to year-to-year leases beginning in 2015 if St. Louis opted not to honor the clause.
Kroenke and the Rams soon began contemplating a new home after the decision by the St. Louis CVC, with Los Angeles emerging as their desired location after Kroenke got control of nearly 300 acres of open land in Inglewood on which he hoped to build a new stadium as part of a massive multi-use development project.
St. Louis’ decision not to renovate the Edward Jones Dome, and the out clause it resulted in in the lease, played a key role in the NFL eventually approving the Rams to move back to St. Louis.
And while St. Louis and Missouri simultaneously worked toward a local stadium project they hoped would convince the NFL to block the Rams from moving to Los Angeles, the NFL deemed the St. Louis riverfront stadium project non viable shortly before owners voted to allow the Rams to move back to L.A.
April 13, 2017 at 10:01 pm #67372znModeratorSt. Louis’ NFL Lawsuit Could Open Legal, PR Floodgates
Thomas Barrabi
FOXBusinessThe city of St. Louis’ lawsuit this week against the NFL and its 32 teams over the Rams’ move to Los Angeles could trigger alarm bells for league officials that approved three controversial franchise relocations in the last two years.
About 15 months after losing the Rams franchise, St. Louis officials say the NFL violated its own standardized relocation guidelines and breached its contract when it approved the team’s move. The city has asked a St. Louis court to compel the NFL to hand over its profits from the relocation, and to award punitive damages to make up for lost revenue.
The NFL also approved relocations for its Raiders and Chargers franchises within the last year – much to the chagrin of fans and officials in their respective home cities of Oakland and San Diego. If St. Louis’ case against the league and its team owner proceeds to trial, the legal and PR fallout from the suit could extend far beyond Missouri, according to Richard Roth, a New York-based sports attorney.
“The case will hinge on the club’s motion to dismiss,” Roth told FOX Business. “If it is granted – and it may not be – then there will be little damage to the NFL’s image as, typical of other lawsuits against the league, the suit will come and go. If, on the other hand, the motion is denied and the suit continues, antennas will go up with not only the league but the Chargers and Raiders organizations.”
Officials in St. Louis claim the loss of the Rams cost the city more than “$100 million in net proceeds,” including up to $3.5 million in annual amusement and ticket tax revenue and roughly $7.5 million in property taxes. The filing points to the rising value of the Rams’ franchise, which Forbes said doubled in value to $3 billion after the move, as well as the $500 million relocation fee the Rams paid to the other 31 owners, as proof that league officials improperly benefitted.
“The Rams, the NFL, through its member teams, and the owners, have violated the obligations and standards governing team relocations by seeking and approving the relocation of the St. Louis Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles, California, despite the fact that the Rams failed to satisfy the obligations imposed by the League’s relocation rules and the fact that relocation was not supported by the required statement of reasons or the adopted relocation standards. In so doing, Defendants have breached their contractual duties owed to Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit says.
The NFL established its current relocation guidelines in 1984. Under the rules, teams interested in a move must “work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.”
The suit alleges the NFL’s actions during the Rams’ relocation bid violated this standard. The filing lists several instances in which league and team officials, including Rams owner Stan Kroenke, allegedly made false statements about their intention to keep the franchise in St. Louis.
“There is no legitimate basis for this litigation. While we understand the disappointment of the St. Louis fans and the community, we worked diligently with local and state officials in a process that was honest and fair at all times,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement.
Representatives for the Los Angeles Rams declined to comment.
Negotiations between the NFL and St. Louis broke down in late 2015 after league officials expressed dissatisfaction with St. Louis’ proposed plans for a new stadium. The league’s 32 owners approved the Rams’ move to Los Angeles in January 2016.
Officials in Oakland and San Diego were critical of the NFL’s decision to relocate their teams in recent months, though neither city has attempted legal action to date.
Roth, who noted that there is no clear precedent for the suit, said St. Louis officials would have to prove the NFL did not “work diligently” to find a solution in the local market, despite their best efforts.
“The City and local government are claiming that the club failed to work diligently with the municipality, as they had done everything the club had asked for; namely, agreeing to a new stadium, finding a way to finance it and responding to each of the club’s demands. If that is the case, then the club did breach its guidelines, providing the municipalities with potential damages,” Roth said.
However, any legal victory would likely be more symbolic than a source of financial reward. If the case proceeds to trial, the plaintiffs would have to convince the court that their claims of financial harm are warranted.
“Damages…are a very tricky issue. They are not easy to prove and may very well be speculative,” Roth said.[/quote]
April 14, 2017 at 1:03 am #67389znModeratorNFL says no basis for suit over Rams’ departure
The National Football League says there is “no legitimate basis” for a lawsuit filed over the Rams’ 2016 relocation from St. Louis to Los Angeles, the Associated Press reports.
The city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and the region’s sports authority filed suit Wednesday, naming the NFL and all 32 teams as defendants. The suit, filed in St. Louis, seeks unspecified but “extensive” damages and restitution.
The lawsuit alleges the Rams failed to meet league relocation rules when leaving for Los Angeles before last season, constituting a contractual breach with St. Louis.
But NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy says the league worked diligently with local and state officials in a process he calls “honest and fair.”
April 17, 2017 at 7:32 pm #67573znModeratorMr Nice Guy wrote:
ESPN Legal Analyst Lester Munson: “StL has a case” against Kroenke/Demoff/Rams, much weaker against the other 31 owners & the league.
Munson was on local sports talk today regarding the lawsuit. He claimed that there is a solid case regarding Kroenke/Demoffs misleading statements. Also said that if the NFL doesn’t settle (he indicated he didn’t think they will) the Rams will have to turn over all their records, emails, etc for discovery. He said that StL has a decent case just with the comments mentioned in the suit itself & that after discovery the case could only improve.
His thoughts on how the whole thing would play out was that he thought Kroenke would settle so he doesn’t have to testify he tagged the amount at $50-$100 million
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
