2021-2022 NFL Season

[Hards Alumni]

Its a civil suit, not a criminal proceeding, 90% of the time it doesn't matter who was right or wrong, just who has better lawyers and who is willing to drag it out longer.

Yup, its a document dump.  Expect the others to do the same.  They're forcing their opposition to sort through needles in a haystack.

[Jockey]

Its a civil suit, not a criminal proceeding, 90% of the time it doesn't matter who was right or wrong, just who has better lawyers and who is willing to drag it out longer.

Whether it is criminal or civil, my point still stands. Rich, powerful people are not compelled to obey the law.

[4everwarriors]

Well, then, there sure are a buncha rich, powerful folks drivin' like total ass holes thru MKE, aina?

[rocket surgeon]

given the setting of the bar in the nfl now, i'm really confident they will be reviewing their super bowl half time show entertainers, the lyrics of their songs dating back to...?? and of course don't forget about their emails

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Well, then, there sure are a buncha rich, powerful folks drivin' like total ass holes thru MKE, aina?

bravo, doc.  bravo.

[shoothoops]

With regards to the St. Louis vs Kroenke/NFL case...

The remaining owners will turn over their financial documents by the December 3rd deadline to avoid being held in contempt of court, and avoid a possible multi billion dollar default judgement. And, if they don't, each of them would have to appear before the court either in person or not. (That part isn't clear yet).

Despite the league dangling new team rumors to try to enfourage the Stl side to settle, there has been zero settlement discussions as of today. That's always subject to change. As of today there is a January trial, already pushed back from October due to the pandemic. And Stl will seek billions of dollars.

As of today, the league doesn't care in any way about the upcoming embarrassment in court. (Some of the things the prosecution has are very damaging for the league) That may be surprising to some who assume the league wants to avoid embarrassment. So far, they don't care about that part. The current league strategy is do nothing, lose big, and try to win on appeal.

Unlike other situations, the league can't control the process with money and power.

Another day, another national outlet has finally found the 5 year old law suit:

https://sports.yahoo.com/leaked-jon-gruden-emails-showcase-pr-danger-for-the-nfl-in-its-potential-billion-dollar-st-louis-lawsuit-042424275.html

[The Sultan]

The reason that the NFL doesn't care about getting embarrassed in court, is that by and large no one outside of St. Louis is going to care.  The NFL knows that no one will stop watching because of this trial.  Just like no one will stop watching because of Jon Gruden. 

You are right about their legal strategy except they will keep dangling settlement offers with the thought that eventually it will be too sweet for the city to pass up.

[shoothoops]

The reason that the NFL doesn't care about getting embarrassed in court, is that by and large no one outside of St. Louis is going to care.  The NFL knows that no one will stop watching because of this trial.  Just like no one will stop watching because of Jon Gruden. 

You are right about their legal strategy except they will keep dangling settlement offers with the thought that eventually it will be too sweet for the city to pass up.

Plenty of other cities will care. I'm sure Buffalo is watching closely and so on. Caring and not watching football aren't necessarily the same thing.

St. Louis is currently in better position with the case. It isn't going to accept anything without a B in front of it. They'd rather take their chances in court. The NFL has shown no direct interest in settling, other than dangling rumors. That again can change between now and January.

For people who enjoy those types of things airing in court, they will have fun with it. Because, it will get ugly if it goes to January trial. Some of the things they have are bad. But at this time, the NFL owners care more about its financials being revealed, than their dirty laundry. That would be a default judgement against them without revealing their financials, and hoping to be more successful with appeal. 

[jficke13]

Plenty of other cities will care. I'm sure Buffalo is watching closely and so on. Caring and not watching football aren't necessarily the same thing.

St. Louis is currently in better position with the case. It isn't going to accept anything without a B in front of it. They'd rather take their chances in court. The NFL has shown no direct interest in settling, other than dangling rumors. That again can change between now and January.

For people who enjoy those types of things airing in court, they will have fun with it. Because, it will get ugly if it goes to January trial. Some of the things they have are bad. But at this time, the NFL owners care more about its financials being revealed, than their dirty laundry. That would be a default judgement against them without revealing their financials, and hoping to be more successful with appeal.

what does this even mean?

[jficke13]

With regards to the St. Louis vs Kroenke/NFL case...

The remaining owners will turn over their financial documents by the December 3rd deadline to avoid being held in contempt of court, and avoid a possible multi billion dollar default judgement. And, if they don't, each of them would have to appear before the court either in person or not. (That part isn't clear yet).

Despite the league dangling new team rumors to try to enfourage the Stl side to settle, there has been zero settlement discussions as of today. That's always subject to change. As of today there is a January trial, already pushed back from October due to the pandemic. And Stl will seek billions of dollars.

As of today, the league doesn't care in any way about the upcoming embarrassment in court. (Some of the things the prosecution has are very damaging for the league) That may be surprising to some who assume the league wants to avoid embarrassment. So far, they don't care about that part. The current league strategy is do nothing, lose big, and try to win on appeal.

Unlike other situations, the league can't control the process with money and power.

Another day, another national outlet has finally found the 5 year old law suit:

https://sports.yahoo.com/leaked-jon-gruden-emails-showcase-pr-danger-for-the-nfl-in-its-potential-billion-dollar-st-louis-lawsuit-042424275.html

There is no prosecution in this case. It's not criminal.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

There is no prosecution in this case. It's not criminal.

Let him go, he's on a roll.

[jficke13]

Let him go, he's on a roll.

True dat. I forgot one of the cardinal rules: Never get in the way of shoothoops when he's got posting momentum. I'm gonna be looking at 2k words arguing about the semantics and etymology of the word "prosecution."

[shoothoops]

There is no prosecution in this case. It's not criminal.

Typo, obviously. Plaintiffs.

[Pakuni]

Plenty of other cities will care. I'm sure Buffalo is watching closely and so on. Caring and not watching football aren't necessarily the same thing.

St. Louis is currently in better position with the case. It isn't going to accept anything without a B in front of it.

St. Louis is living in a fantasy world if they think they're getting anything close to a B out of this. By what basis could they claim their losses are anything close to that?

[shoothoops]

Let him go, he's on a roll.

It's cute how (and a few others) you follow me around trolling post to post, thread to thread, even start new threads of blue haired disinformation.

15 years is a long time, longer than most have been here.

This is the NFL thread. So I'm happy to discuss that.

[MUBurrow]

St. Louis is living in a fantasy world if they think they're getting anything close to a B out of this. By what basis could they claim their losses are anything close to that?

I agree they won't get that kind of money.  However from a legal theatre standpoint, I think it would be awesome to see all of the promises owners make about the public benefits of sports teams when they are trying to get public money for stadiums exhibited at trial and St Louis's counsel saying "We calculated our damages based on what owners have been telling us the benefits are of having a team."

[shoothoops]

St. Louis is living in a fantasy world if they think they're getting anything close to a B out of this. By what basis could they claim their losses are anything close to that?

Lost revenue, relocation fee, team valuation increase, punitive damages, etc...

[ZiggysFryBoy]

It's cute how (and a few others) you follow me around trolling post to post, thread to thread, even start new threads of blue haired disinformation.

15 years is a long time, longer than most have been here.

This is the NFL thread. So I'm happy to discuss that.

I stand by that list.  Not sure what it has to do with your St Louis ramblings, but thanks for the smile.

Why you shoothoops-a-looping?

[Pakuni]

Lost revenue, relocation fee, team valuation increase, punitive damages, etc...

Lost revenue?
Stadium deals typically end up being losers for municipalities. Even if St. Louis could somehow prove they would be the exception to the rule, their gain wouldn't be anywhere near 10 figures.

Relocation fee?
You'll have to show me what fee St. Louis paid.

Team valuation increase?
Why would St. Louis benefit from the increased valuation of a private business, and now be owed a portion of that?

Punitive damages? 
Sure, they can argue for that. Ask the USFL - which had a much stronger case, btw - how that turned out.

[shoothoops]

Lost revenue?
Stadium deals typically end up being losers for municipalities. Even if St. Louis could somehow prove they would be the exception to the rule, their gain wouldn't be anywhere near 10 figures.

Relocation fee?
You'll have to show me what fee St. Louis paid.

Team valuation increase?
Why would St. Louis benefit from the increased valuation of a private business, and now be owed a portion of that?

Punitive damages? 
Sure, they can argue for that. Ask the USFL - which had a much stronger case, btw - how that turned out.

Like I said, I am merely presenting what I know. Is it a multi billion dollar case? Yes, And that's been pretty universally agreed upon. It doesn't mean they will get billions or a new team or a penny. That remains to be seen.

So when I present the information, it isn't my opinion that I am presenting.

For the sake of brevity here, this thread here can help you.

https://twitter.com/wallachlegal/status/1438872704984223744?s=21

Hotel, property tax, sales tax, ticket tax. etc...is 9 figures.

Relocation fee is also 9 figures, $550 Million.

Team Valuation increase from $1.45 Billion to $4.8 Billion.

Punitive damages.

[Pakuni]

Like I said, I am merely presenting what I know. Is it a multi billion dollar case? Yes, And that's been pretty universally agreed upon. It doesn't mean they will get billions or a new team or a penny. That remains to be seen.

So when I present the information, it isn't my opinion that I am presenting.

For the sake of brevity here, this thread here can help you.

https://twitter.com/wallachlegal/status/1438872704984223744?s=21

Hotel, property tax, sales tax, ticket tax. etc...is 9 figures.

Relocation fee is also 9 figures, $550 Million.

Team Valuation increase from $1.45 Billion to $4.8 Billion.

Punitive damages.

That tweet is ridiculous.
There's no way St. Louis can make a claim that they're owed the relocation fee the NFL received from the Rams franchise for allowing a move to LA. That's not how legal damages work. You get damages on what you lose. The city didn't lose a relocation fee.
Same for the valuation increase. The city didn't lose anything by the Rams becoming more valuable, nor did they stand to gain anything had the team's value gained value by remaining in St. Louis.

As for the taxes ... those are all gross revenues not weighed against the city's costs of building a stadium. And, as well all know, those costs almost always outpace the gains.
Again, you can only recover your actual and potential losses. St. Louis can't go to court and claim they're owed millions in potential tax revenue without weighing that against the tax money they'd have spent happily to keep the Rams in town.

[jficke13]

They can claim it, but that's mostly just negotiation posturing.

I'm not very familiar with that attorney, but perusing his website it appears that he dedicates a decent amount of his practice not to actual litigation but rather to media analysis. He is no doubt very observant that intelligent lawyering does not get you booked on cable news segments, providing confirmation bias and clickbait fuel does. I would take his twitter analyses of this case with a fair bit of salt.

Also, of note, he bills himself as a sports gaming (as in gambling) specialist. This case is, somewhat notably, not about gambling. He's probably only vaguely better equipped to armchair analyze the damage claims in this case than I am.

[shoothoops]

That tweet is ridiculous.
There's no way St. Louis can make a claim that they're owed the relocation fee the NFL received from the Rams franchise for allowing a move to LA. That's not how legal damages work. You get damages on what you lose. The city didn't lose a relocation fee.
Same for the valuation increase. The city didn't lose anything by the Rams becoming more valuable, nor did they stand to gain anything had the team's value gained value by remaining in St. Louis.

As for the taxes ... those are all gross revenues not weighed against the city's costs of building a stadium. And, as well all know, those costs almost always outpace the gains.
Again, you can only recover your actual and potential losses. St. Louis can't go to court and claim they're owed millions in potential tax revenue without weighing that against the tax money they'd have spent happily to keep the Rams in town.

This is far from the only person saying it, and covering it. The case has been ongoing for 5 years.

Here is NFL friendly Andrew Brandt:

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/10/13/business-of-football-understanding-st-lous-rams-lawsuit?__twitter_impression=true

Several people on this panel have covered the case for several years:

https://twitter.com/SportsLawLust/status/1448307933075410956?t=qb5poPLLMNKgARsQxU1pbQ&s=19

[The Sultan]

This is far from the only person saying it, and covering it. The case has been ongoing for 5 years.

Here is NFL friendly Andrew Brandt:

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/10/13/business-of-football-understanding-st-lous-rams-lawsuit?__twitter_impression=true

OK.  That article was pretty well balanced sharing both sides point of view.  Hardly counteracts what Pakuni said.

[Pakuni]

This is far from the only person saying it, and covering it. The case has been ongoing for 5 years.

Shoot ... I'm not arguing that St. Louis won't ask for billions. They can ask for as much as they want, and plaintiffs always ask for the moon.
What I'm suggesting is that what they're seeking and what's realistic are not the same. Even if they get a friendly jury to play along, I would not expect appellate courts to uphold that kind of a finding.