Thread: St. Louis seat license holders sue Rams over access to LA seats

That money should unquestionably be returned. Their agreement was with the St. Louis Rams not the Los Angeles Rams.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

That money should unquestionably be returned. Their agreement was with the St. Louis Rams not the Los Angeles Rams.

I would think at least a prorated portion of it should be returned

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

That money should unquestionably be returned. Their agreement was with the St. Louis Rams not the Los Angeles Rams.

The real question was whether it was between the Rams and ticket holders only in relation to that stadium that they bought seat licenses for.

Originally Posted by Tned

The real question was whether it was between the Rams and ticket holders only in relation to that stadium that they bought seat licenses for.

So, the seat licenses could potentially be for some or all events, not just football? I didn't catch that part.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

So, the seat licenses could potentially be for some or all events, not just football? I didn't catch that part.

No, I mean, related to the specific stadium. For instance, if you look at how it was listed on the Rams website (they've taken it down now), it stated:

Season Ticket Holders with A PSL
A Personal Seat License (PSL) is a one time payment that provides ownership rights to your same great seats each season in the Edward Jones Dome. View the benefits you’ll receive as a PSL owner!
Guaranteed renewal rights each season in the Edward Jones Dome
Per seat savings over the course of the season for the same seats purchased through any other ticket plans
Playoff priority for the same seats

So, was there something more official than this? This says it gives them a right to but tickets at the Edward Jones Dome. However, they knew they were likely to move or get a new St. Louis stadium, so the real question is what did people "buy" 10, 15 years ago, including the ones that pre-bought PSL's before the Rams moved to St. Louis.

Originally Posted by Tned

Think of it almost like an initiation fee at a country club. It gets you the right to be there, but then there are still monthly/annual dues. In the case of PSL's that stadiums have been using for the last decade or so, the PSL is a charge that simply gives you the "right" to buy the tickets at face value. So, if you buy two PSL's for seats with a face value of $100, then each year, you will pay $1,000 for each of the seats, and that's on top of whatever your initial PSL was.

This is the new way that a lot of owners have financed the new stadiums. I remember them saying that there were some seats that were 100-150k seat license for the new Cowboy's stadium and I think the cheapest was around 20k per seat. So, if you had four season tickets, you would be ponying up $80k or more, just for the right to buy those seats going forward.

Since PSL's are fairly new as far as I know, this might be one of the first cases where we have fans that bought a PSL and then had the team move or have the stadium torn down and a new one built. I would be curious to see if there is a precedent with PSL's and a new stadium (either team move or just building a new stadium) and how that team handled it.

I see. Sounds like another desperate owner attempt to make up for more and more of their revenue coming from a 32-way even split on broadcast contracts and merchandise, and boost the ONE thing they don't have to share (except with the city/county:) Stadium revenue. That's fine, but if the agreement's solely with the team, it's still the same team and should have to honor that agreement or refund the licensing fee on which they've defaulted.

Now, if the local government and/or a specific stadium's involved, that's different, but it doesn't sound like that's the case: The license holders made a deal with the Rams, be it the St. Louis Rams, L.A. Rams or Betelgeuse Rams. Honor that legally binding agreement or pay the consequence of default. If we're talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars PER FAN to buy the license, the Rams certainly shouldn't be allowed to keep that money without honoring the agreement it bought.

Now: Raise your hand if you're glad Mr. Bowlen's not a greedy douche. *raises hand*

Originally Posted by Joel

I see. Sounds like another desperate owner attempt to make up for more and more of their revenue coming from a 32-way even split on broadcast contracts and merchandise, and boost the ONE thing they don't have to share (except with the city/county Stadium revenue.

Sorry, I'm not sure if this was meant to sound funny or idiotic, but either way, I assume that since you are intelligent to know these millionaire/billionaires aren't desperate, that you were simply trying to make an exaggerated point and not just type something dumb.

That's fine, but if the agreement's solely with the team, it's still the same team and should have to honor that agreement or refund the licensing fee on which they've defaulted.

Ummm, no, it should honor the terms of the agreement. We live in a highly litigious society, and as such, it ALL depends on what the agreement states. Our feelings and empathy for the season ticket holders aren't a factor.

Now, if the local government and/or a specific stadium's involved, that's different, but it doesn't sound like that's the case: The license holders made a deal with the Rams, be it the St. Louis Rams, L.A. Rams or Betelgeuse Rams. Honor that legally binding agreement or pay the consequence of default. If we're talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars PER FAN to buy the license, the Rams certainly shouldn't be allowed to keep that money without honoring the agreement it bought.

Oh, since you are enlightened, please share with us the terms of the PSL agreement.

Now: Raise your hand if you're glad Mr. Bowlen's not a greedy douche. *raises hand*

I'm glad the Broncos didn't go the PSL route when they built Invesco. Hopefully, by the time they build the next stadium, the days of PSL's will have come and gone.

Originally Posted by Tned

Sorry, I'm not sure if this was meant to sound funny or idiotic, but either way, I assume that since you are intelligent to know these millionaire/billionaires aren't desperate, that you were simply trying to make an exaggerated point and not just type something dumb.

Why would being million/billionaires make them any less desperate to grab a dollar they don't have to share (except with any other stadium co-owners; don't know if the Edward Jones Dome has any)? They didn't become million/billionaires by passing up chances for a quick buck, or, if PSLs are going for up to $100k each, a quick several million bucks. And it's virtually the ONLY part of NFL revenue they keep the majority of instead of splitting evenly 32 ways, so maybe "desperate" was a loaded word, but they're very EAGER to maximize; way more than their other heavily diluted revenue streams.

Originally Posted by Tned

Ummm, no, it should honor the terms of the agreement. We live in a highly litigious society, and as such, it ALL depends on what the agreement states. Our feelings and empathy for the season ticket holders aren't a factor.

Yes, it ALL depends on what the agreement states: That's why I said, "if the agreement's solely with the team." Or if there's any specific language that says the team is relieved of its contractual obligation in case of [any things that have happened.] The latter seems unlikely, but you never know what's in the fine print. ABSENT such language, IF the agreement's SOLELY with the team then nothing's changed. Again, if I contract with someone to pay me a fee guaranteeing they can later buy something else from me, moving to another city, state or PLANET doesn't invalidate it unless it specifies otherwise. I doubt the PSL holders forfeit their right to buy seats if THEY move (although, again, no, I haven't seen the actual agreement, only what's been posted here.)

The Rams should honor their agreement if it remains valid, as the litigants claim it does; otherwise, that sounds like a default, for which the Rams would be liable.

Originally Posted by Tned

Oh, since you are enlightened, please share with us the terms of the PSL agreement.

Don't know 'em, hence the qualified statements. The OP says they're suing PRECISELY because the PSL DOESN'T specify seats in the Edward Jones Dome, only RAMS home tickets. IF that's the case, the Rams are still the Rams, and all the Rams existing contractual agreements (e.g. NOT the expired contract to play at the Edward Jones Dome) remain in force WHEREVER they're legally obliged to honor those agreements.

To take the most convenient and obvious example, the St. Louis Rams becoming the L.A. Rams didn't invalidate their right to NFL revenue-sharing: Because they're still the Rams organization, irrespective of location. Why should the PSL be any different if it doesn't specify where the seats are? There might even be an argument that if the PSL DOES guarantee license holders the right to buy seats at home games AT THE EDWARD JONES DOME then the Rams are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to play home games there (though I wouldn't want to try proving that one.)

Originally Posted by Tned

I'm glad the Broncos didn't go the PSL route when they built Invesco. Hopefully, by the time they build the next stadium, the days of PSL's will have come and gone.

Or better yet, the Bowlen Family will remain the decent classy people (and thereby exceptions to the NFL norm) they've always been.

who cares!?

**** the fans.

California Football League for the win!

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

who cares!?

**** the fans.

California Football League for the win!

Most of the fans are IN California—but the rest remain entitled to buy all seats they paid handsomely to reserve: Whether the team moves to CA or the moon. Maybe that's the best analogy: If you reserve seats at a restaurant that goes out of business, well, force majeure. But if the SAME restaurant's STILL in business and simply MOVES, they owe you a table or a refund, especially if they signed a contract. Unless the contract lets them default if they move, but it sounds like this one didn't.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/footb...4ec4c11c1.html

Lawsuit claims Jerry Jones conspired with Kroenke on Rams move

Some NFL observers believe the efforts made by Jerry Jones to get the Rams to Los Angeles — and out of St. Louis — helped get the Dallas Cowboys' owner into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

But the plaintiffs in the St. Louis relocation lawsuit against the NFL and all 32 team owners believe otherwise.

Nearly a full page in the 52-page lawsuit filed Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court is devoted to Jones and what the suit claims was his intentional interference with the plaintiffs' business relationship with the Rams.

The lawsuit claims Jones did so "by encouraging, promoting, and conspiring with Mr. (Stan) Kroenke to develop a plan to relocate the Rams to Los Angeles and convincing the other member-teams to approve the relocation."

Kroenke, of course, is the owner of the Rams. The league approved the team's relocation to Los Angeles from St. Louis on Jan. 12, 2016, by a vote of 30-2.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks damages and restitution of profits, are the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, and St. Louis city and county.

The lawsuit mentions several examples of how it claims Jones interfered with the plaintiffs' reasonable "business expectancy" — in other words, when a person intentionally damages a plaintiff's contractual or other business relationship with a third party.

The suit claims that:

• In August 2013, Jones and Kroenke discussed the Inglewood, Calif., site as a desirable location for a new stadium to house the Rams.

• Jones lobbied other owners for support of Kroenke's proposed move of the Rams before the vote on relocation.

• Jones advised Kroenke to start the process of building the California stadium project before NFL approval "so as to move the project along and encourage ultimate NFL permission."

• After the initial vote rejecting the proposed relocation, Jones persuaded other owners to approve the move based solely on the amount of money that could be made in Los Angeles.

• Jones provided the blueprint for the deal that ultimately received enough votes for relocation.

• Contrary to standards established in the NFL relocation policy, Jones engaged in this conduct believing that St. Louis was a viable football city and could support a team. After the vote, Jones suggested that St. Louis should get another team and stated that St. Louis is "certainly an NFL town without question."