NFL, Rams Could Face $1 Billion Settlement in St. Louis Relocation Lawsuit

NFL, Rams Could Face $1 Billion Settlement in St. Louis Relocation Lawsuit




This is all I've wanted the entire time. Having the money for the city would be great but I want the NFL to have to air their dirty laundry soooooo bad!


The fans of the NFL need to see just how much THEY were lied to, as well as us


No one cared about CtE cover ups. Barely even batted an eye at the billion dollar settled for that.


Should be way more than that.


It could be if it goes to trial


If it goes to trial, and if punitive damages are assessed - it could apparently be as high as $10 billion according to the OP’s article.


Now that would make for a shiny new stadium for the Battlehawks.


If it goes to trial it will be brutal for Kroenke and the NFL.




God I want it to go to trial so bad..... The national media would be forced to finally cover it and many would actually see the NFL for what they are... Crooks. Its amazing how many other NFL cities have been told the opposite story of why the rams left which is: "Oh the Rams fans were just shitty and never showed up, the NFL did all it could but the city no longer wanted the team" many dont even know that we had a stadium plan done and ready, or the empty promises that were made to the fandom by Demhoff..


Fuck Stan Kroenke




Who's Stank Roenke?


It’s his alter ego when he goes on Ashley Madison or Adult Friend Finder. In-cog-nito.


> “If the judge allows the jury to consider the valuation increase along with the $550 million relocation fee, punitive damages — which multiply damages as a deterrent — could surpass $10 billion.” Please do not settle. Even if going to trial didn't get more than a billion, dragging this out and that jackass through the mud some more would be worth it. I know the NFL is going to do absolutely everything they can to settle this which sucks.


St. Louis and Missouri don't have anything to gain by settling. The only reason to settle is for more than what they think they could get from the lawsuit, which is the difference between how much the lawsuit is worth and how much the NFL doesn't want the information out there. I wouldn't put it below Missouri to settle for that reason, our politicians care more about money than justice, but I for sure would rather all that information was made public.


It would be in the state's interest to go to trial as well, since Jeff City receives 50% of any punitive damages won by any county or municipality in the state in any lawsuits. So if the punitive damages were to be, let's say, $2B, only $1B would be divided between the City, County and the Authority. The other $1B would go into the state's tort fund.


Fuck Stan Kroenke.


I'm just here to upvote all the 'fuck Stan Kroenke' comments!


$4 billion should be their first offer. $1 billion doesn’t even cover their enrichment.


From the article, $1B is the starting point, could be upwards of $10B if it goes to trial. “The plaintiffs claim the city, county, and state have lost more than $100 million in hotel, property tax, sales tax, and ticket tax revenues since the Rams left town,” according to FOS. “If the judge allows the jury to consider the valuation increase along with the $550 million relocation fee, punitive damages — which multiply damages as a deterrent — could surpass $10 billion.”


Let's go to trial.


Hear that, lawyers?! DON'T FUCKING SETTLE!


Especially since Jeff City gets 50% for the state tort fund. A trial could maximize the punitive damages.


Were about to get that 3 comma club settlement.


Tres Comas


Club de Tres Comas


Soooo sleepy...


Let's use it to build an Arch for our Arch!


We could put another Arch in Saint Charles Only thing better than an arch is two arches


Those are rookie numbers, gotta bump those up


i read a twitter thread where the verdict could be in the 3-5 billion range...even better du to a contr5act signed by Kroenke at the time of relocation...all judgements are to be paid by Kroenke and not the other owners.


Real Talk: I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall during owners meetings right now when this subject comes up.


This is really exciting. Imagine what all our city leaders' campaign donors and lawyers will be able to do with that kind of money. Life changing.


The trolly is gonna be so badass guys. It'll go *almost* all the way to the CWE.


They could finally get that bigger boat they’ve always wanted and worked hard for.


They're bringing back the Admiral from the scrap yard!


Nah, the McDonald’s boat or we riot.




The new Boaty McBoatface


I mean sadly this is what lowers my enthusiasm. If only we had competent leadership at any level :(


Mandatory Casa Guillardos


NFL settles. 5 billion. Offers stl an expansion. 6 billion. Stl leaders beat each other off trying to be the one to land the deal after we build a billion dollar stadium.


A really good interview done by a local show where they interviewed a sports legal expert - http://insidestl.com/09-21-21-segment-2-daniel-wallach-on-the-nflstl-lawsuit/2021085


thats the twitter feed I referred to...great read. the big question...take a sure thing or gamble on a jury verdict and 5-10 years of appeals


Time to pay up, Stank!


Have you or a loved one suffered emotional trauma from sudden loss of a football team? If so, you may be entitled to substantial compensation! Call us now!!


as someone who just wanted the raiders to come back, I just want to say 'lol'


If this happens hopefully we don't piss away the money.


Oh, it'll definitely trickle down...


Skewer their ass


I propose that they need to tear down the Inglewood stadium too


That is too environmentally destructive. We just want to go after Stan. Not the environment.


We could use the money, but I fear very few in the city will see it. Who will get the money is a good question.


A third of it goes to the law firm(s?) representing the city.


Who gets to make the decision to settle or go on?


Crooks get to decide


Always has been


[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/gJumec0.png) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot


Fucking great bot


Likely the lawyers. They will not be paid unless they win/settle.


Why would the lawyers get to decide? The plaintiffs (i.e. the people who brought the lawsuit) get to decide whether to accept the settlement, which would be decided upon on the other side by the defendants. Lawyers would be involved in those discussions, but it isn't their decision.


I don't remember fully but I thought the lawyers just went ahead and started this lawsuit. The City didn't hire them and ask them to do it. Hence why we aren't paying them for anything unless they win. They know the city couldn't afford to hire lawyers for this lawsuit and lose - we can't afford it. I think this is entirely lawyer initiated to represent the plaintiffs which is why they call the shots.


Dude, I don't think you understand how the legal system works. Lawyers cannot just decide that you're going to sue somebody without your knowledge or consent....


Yeah I really have no clue what's going on apparently. I just read the thingy things online and thought I understood but clearly no clue.


Yeah that's just blatantly wrong. It's on contingency, meaning the lawyers feel strongly enough about the case that they are willing to do the work for the publicity and then a share of any damages awarded from the trial if they win.


So the city did ask them to do it? I thought the lawyers said hey were doing this on contingency. Lawyer initiated vs city initiated. The city just said ok. Obviously I'm not a lawyer - I'm just repeating what I thought media said was going on. Please don't hate me for being wrong :(


Lawyers can recommend a settlement or not but the ultimate decision rests with the client. Regardless how the lawyers feel about a settlement offer, they have an ethical obligation to present the settlement to the client. I once had a case where the defendant owed our client money. He sent a notice under the fair debt collections act not to contact him so they stopped trying to collect it and hired us to sue him for the amount. He countersued us and claimed that by serving him with the lawsuit we had contacted him. He made an offer that if our client paid him and publicly admitted to violating the FDCPA by harassing him he would agree to settle the case. Even though it was an absurd offer I couldn’t say no on that call, I had to present it to my client and they said no. The FDCPA does contain provisions about giving a debt collector notice not to contact you about the debt but that doesn’t prevent a lawyer from suing you for the debt. This is not legal advice, just life advice that if you think you found one clever trick to get around the law you may be overlooking something. Sovereign citizens rarely win in court despite what they believe. If you find yourself in debt or are sued please contact a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction to get advice on your case.


But I don't think these lawyers were exactly "hired" by the city - I didn't think they were the client. They may be representing them, but the lawyers know the city can't afford the lawyers if they lose. So the lawyers said we are doing this but only get paid if we win - feel like that gives them more leverage in the outcome since they are working for free until victory.


> But I don't think these lawyers were exactly "hired" by the city - I didn't think they were the client. They may be representing them, You are misunderstanding how payment on contingency works. If you have authorized some lawyers to represent you in court, you are absolutely their client. Payment terms are irrelevant to this. In injury cases it is normal that the lawyers only get paid if they win.


Interesting! Thanks for teaching me something new today!


The fact that they are working on contingency doesn’t change their ethical obligations to the client or the fact that the client is the ultimate decision maker. Some plaintiff’s lawyers will include in their contract that if the client rejects a reasonable settlement offer and then does not recover at trial they client has to pay the attorney X% of what that settlement offer was but that is separate from the fact that the client ultimately decides whether to accept a settlement or not.


Gooootcha. This makes sense now. Thanks for teaching me how contingency works!


Man I miss the STL Rams.


We should hold a public trial where it’s an open forum for whomever wants to air their grievances. People will form an orderly queue, have a microphone, and be allowed to say whatever they feel for as long as they want with no time limit. Only one turn per person, and Kroenke has to sit in a chair and listen without responding until the line is done. Whether it be days…weeks…or months…