[/zn/]

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

And no one said they were. The way you phrased that has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

What actually happened is this. The Rams sloppily left behind evidence that they and the NFL were not following the league's own rules for relocation. That's the basis of the suit. If the league violated its own rules it violated its own rules.

I am not obligated to tell you my future plans as a poster, however if there is evidence I conspired to kidnap and murder another poster (which, presumably, violates board rules), you can't dismiss that just because I wasn't obligated to tell you.

...

[AvengerRam]

I am not obligated to tell you my future plans as a poster, however if there is evidence I conspired to kidnap and murder another poster (which, presumably, violates board rules), you can't dismiss that just because I wasn't obligated to tell you.

They never told me about that rule at Moderator orientation.

[majik]

And no one said they were. The way you phrased that has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

What actually happened is this. The Rams sloppily left behind evidence that they and the NFL were not following the league's own rules for relocation. That's the basis of the suit. If the league violated its own rules it violated its own rules.

I am not obligated to tell you my future plans as a poster, however if there is evidence I conspired to kidnap and murder another poster (which, presumably, violates board rules), you can't dismiss that just because I wasn't obligated to tell you.

...

So no laws that a court of law deals with were broken? No contract was broken between St. Louis and the Rams and the NFL. If the league violated its own rules then that is an NFL versus owner issue, not a St. Louis and the Rams and the NFL issue.

[St. Loser Fan]

[/zn/]

So no laws that a court of law deals with were broken? No contract was broken between St. Louis and the Rams and the NFL. If the league violated its own rules then that is an NFL versus owner issue, not a St. Louis and the Rams and the NFL issue.

What does the lawsuit claim to be about? Do you know?

The claim is that in violating its own rules, the NFL itself misled the city of St. Louis into spending money.

And of course efforts to dismiss this suit have failed. If your argument were the least bit pertinent, and actually fit the situation, how stupid would the Rams have to be to NOT make your argument in trying to get the suit dismissed.

...

[majik]

The NFL violating its own rules is an internal NFL issue. The NFL has no contract with St. Louis. The Rams have no contract with St. Louis once the lease expired. St. Louis has no legal right outside of a lease agreement with the Rams to have a football team.

The city of St. Louis spent money to keep the Rams. Is the city of St. Louis contending that if they knew the Rams were considering moving to LA that they would have not spent the money?

[/zn/]

The NFL violating its own rules is an internal NFL issue.

Then there would be no basis for a lawsuit. Yet there is a lawsuit. Efforts to dismiss it did not work. Apparently your argument doesn't apply to the situation. That's because the way the lawsuit is framed, your point is irrelevant. The actual point is that the NFL itself contributed to misleading St. Louis, a fact which had real financial ramifications.

If any of your arguments on this held up, then the case would have been dismissed--it would have no legal standing. Yet efforts to dismiss it have failed.

from Roger Goodell’s Lying Exposed In St. Louis’ Lawsuit Against NFL Over Rams’ Relocation

July 13, 2021

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/07/13/ ... elocation/

BOSTON (CBS) — Roger Goodell loves to give long-winded answers, in which he says absolutely nothing. Occasionally, though, he slips up and states a non-truth.

Or, in layman’s terms, he tells a lie.

St. Louis’ ongoing litigation against the NFL seems to have exposed a couple of rather significant manipulations of the truth by the commissioner of the NFL.

Randy Karraker, a radio host for ESPN radio in St. Louis, reported on the events in the courtroom on Monday. In the midst of that reporting he noted that Kevin Demoff, the chief operating officer of the Rams, notified the NFL in 2014 that a story would soon be coming out which noted that Rams owner Stan Kroenke had purchased a large plot of land in the Los Angeles area, with the intention to build a stadium.

The league responded to Demoff’s information by asking, “What should we say?” Karraker reported that Demoff then provided “talking points” that Goodell used during his Super Bowl press conference in New York.



While answering a question about that exact topic during that press conference, Goodell denied having any knowledge that the land purchase was made with the intent of building an NFL stadium.

“We’re aware of [the land purchase],” Goodell said, per CBS Los Angeles at the time. “There are no plans, to my knowledge, of a stadium development. Anything that would require a stadium development would require multiple votes of the membership.”

Goodell also said, “We should make sure we do what’s necessary to continue to support the team locally, which the fans have done in St. Louis, and make sure we can do whatever we can to make sure that team is successful in the St. Louis market.”

Based on the evidence coming out from the courtroom in St. Louis, it does not appear as though those words were sincere.

In fact, in the courtroom, it was revealed that at least a month before that press conference statement, Goodell vowed to Kroenke that he would keep the land deal secret.


For Goodell to say that in 2013 while then saying “there are no plans, to my knowledge, of a stadium development” in 2014 is nothing short of a bald-faced lie from the commissioner at his annual Super Bowl press conference.

Another mistake by Goodell was spotlighted by Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, who noted that the basis of the NFL’s argument — that the league’s relocation policy is voluntary and not mandatory — was undermined by Goodell’s own statement that the policy is, in fact, mandatory.




Florio wrote: “If the NFL claims the relocation policy is voluntary and the Commissioner of the NFL has admitted under oath that it’s not, that’s a problem. A big problem. The kind of problem that undermines the credibility of every claim the NFL is making in the case. Indeed, if the league can’t be taken at its word on such a basic and clear question, what if anything that it says in that case can be believed?”

...

This time — with the court ruling that the finances of Goodell and some powerful, rich NFL owners can be investigated — there figures to be some more significant fallout from the commissioner’s dedication to obscuring the truth when speaking publicly.

[majik]

Thank you for making my point for me. This lawsuit has no legal basis outside of a hometown judge permitting it to move forward. The NFL will appeal any negative decision and win once you get judges that actually attended law school the day they taught law.

St. Louis would have spent this money to keep the Rams. To argue that St. Louis would have only spent this money if they thought there was no way the Rams could move is ridiculous. In fact, the prospect of them spending more money due to competition with LA to be the home of the Rams is logical

[St. Loser Fan]

Summary from St. Louis radio:
-the Hunt family is seething angry
-today’s decision accelerates the possibility of a settlement
-but the big shoe drop will come on August 25th
-the St. Louis law firms aren’t eager to settle. They want trial and they see dollar signs.
-today’s hearing was another favor to the NFL by being off the docket.
-change of venue is likely
-one big point is the first thing Stan exclaimed after wining the approval to buy in 2010 was “Los Angeles baby!”. He wouldn’t answer about it in the 16 hour deposition but others have confirmed.

[jackburginjr]

Again they followed the contract that spelled out the terms. The arbitrators ruled in The Rams favor. They did nothing wrong MOVING. They violated nothing.