[/zn/]

Stan did not break a lease. The NFL had rules/guidelines about franchise relocation back in the 1980’s, how did that work out when Al Davis sued the NFL to move from Oakland to LA?

Which is not the same thing as the NFL claiming to have followed its own rules while communication with Demoff indicated it was otherwise all along.

...

[majik]

The NFL would like stability and not have franchises moving, however, when push comes to shove, it is the right of each owner to move their franchise to another city if they see fit, no matter what the NFL wants.

The NFL can suggest or create guidelines for franchise relocation in order to give current cities every opportunity to keep their franchises, but if an owner who doesn’t have a legally binding lease tying them to a stadium, he isn’t obligated to take whatever the city they are in gives them. That seems to be the position officials in St. Louis took until Stan was already out the door.

[/zn/]

The NFL would like stability and not have franchises moving, however, when push comes to shove, it is the right of each owner to move their franchise to another city if they see fit, no matter what the NFL wants.

But that's not what the lawsuit's about. No one is suing to keep franchises from moving. St.L is suing because both the Rams and the NFL misrepresented the situation for a considerable period of time, and in the process the NFL knowingly ignored its own rules. (The rules have to do with the process of moving, how to apply for it etc.) We know this because Demoff was careless enough to leave a paper and email trail demonstrating exactly that.

If the NFL was stupid enough to both (a) have rules governing moving, and (b) at the same time clearly communicate to involved parties that the rules will be ignored, then...yeah they leave themselves open to this kind of thing.

A lot of people respond to this by saying yeah well teams move what-are-ya-gonna-do. That misses the point of the lawsuit and kind of clouds the real issue the lawsuit is getting at.
...

[St. Loser Fan]

The NFL would like stability and not have franchises moving, however, when push comes to shove, it is the right of each owner to move their franchise to another city if they see fit, no matter what the NFL wants.

The NFL can suggest or create guidelines for franchise relocation in order to give current cities every opportunity to keep their franchises, but if an owner who doesn’t have a legally binding lease tying them to a stadium, he isn’t obligated to take whatever the city they are in gives them. That seems to be the position officials in St. Louis took until Stan was already out the door.

That's one question: are the Charger, Rams, Raiders moves be the last for a long while or will there be another spasm coming soon? A lot of those late 90's built stadiums are coming due and the price for a NFL worthy stadium just got a lot more expensive.

I think there are going to be more disappointed fans in stagnant cities like Buffalo, Cincinnati and Jacksonville that can't afford $1 billion to $2 billion to build new stadiums to keep the NFL there.

[azramsfan93]

Right, but it's essentially his if he waits long enough. And it's just dumb. He should just give up his option on the place.

You are advocating unilaterally surrendering an asset to the party that is currently your adversary in court. No intelligent person would ever do that.

[rams74]

You are advocating unilaterally surrendering an asset to the party that is currently your adversary in court. No intelligent person would ever do that.

Depends on what you think you gain in doing so. Not further provoking that adversary might be worth something. Doing the right thing might be worth something. What difference does that asset make to a multi-billionaire anyway? I'm sure he donates assets of that value to various charities every day. What's one more?

In any case, I didn't say that Kroenke WILL do that.

[azramsfan93]

Depends on what you think you gain in doing so. Not further provoking that adversary might be worth something. Doing the right thing might be worth something. What difference does that asset make to a multi-billionaire anyway? I'm sure he donates assets of that value to various charities every day. What's one more?

In any case, I didn't say that Kroenke WILL do that.

I didn’t say he wouldn’t do it. Just not right now. It would likely be a part of a settlement negotiation, or a donation AFTER the lawsuit terminates.

[majik]

But that's not what the lawsuit's about. No one is suing to keep franchises from moving. St.L is suing because both the Rams and the NFL misrepresented the situation for a considerable period of time, and in the process the NFL knowingly ignored its own rules. (The rules have to do with the process of moving, how to apply for it etc.) We know this because Demoff was careless enough to leave a paper and email trail demonstrating exactly that.

If the NFL was stupid enough to both (a) have rules governing moving, and (b) at the same time clearly communicate to involved parties that the rules will be ignored, then...yeah they leave themselves open to this kind of thing.

A lot of people respond to this by saying yeah well teams move what-are-ya-gonna-do. That misses the point of the lawsuit and kind of clouds the real issue the lawsuit is getting at.
...

I’m sorry but the neither the Rams nor the NFL are obligated to tell St. Louis what they are planning in a negotiation.

The Rams lease expired in 2015, unless officials in St. Louis are dumber than a bag of rocks (which based on the 1995 lease they just might be), then they have to realize that there was a very real possibility that they could move. I don’t think officials in St. Louis recognized this until way too late. In a negotiation, why wouldn’t Demoff do everything in his power to encourage St. Louis to put their best offer forward. Asking them to revise proposals is part of negotiating.

Unless you are advocating the position that a team with an expired lease cannot negotiate with anyone other than St. Louis officials for a new stadium.

[St. Loser Fan]

But the St. Louis group “lost” when they were denied the detailed financials for ALL 32 teams.

EDIT: Sounds like today was another off-the-docket/very short notice hearing. But next hearing is August 25th.

EDIT 2: The Hunt family (KC Chiefs) are really unhappy.

[majik]

And what do the financial records of anyone other than Kroenke have to do with this case?

To show that NFL teams made more money as a result of the Rams moving to LA from St. Louis? Well duh. What is next? Discovery to determine that rain is wet?