NFL plans to settle with Saint Louis, terms to be made public(UPDATE settled for 790 million---UPDATE speculated Chargers/Raiders may have leaked internal documents to St Louis implicating Kroenke)

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

 

STL was looking for around $1B in damages.  I'd say settling for a few hundred million less was worth it to them, as well as the NFL because they knew they would lose and owners' information would have been made public.  Not bad for STL when many thought they were foolish to even bring a lawsuit against the NFL because they thought they had no chance. 

 

What I would like to know is who pays for it (it better just be Kroenke, and at most the owners who approved the move) and if STL is interested in an expansion team in the future and whether the NFL has closed the door on that with the settlement, considering they appear to want to expand the league?

 

 

Eh, PSE just said the obvious part out loud.  Public funds will have to be used.  And in the end both will contribute, a new stadium will be built and the team will stay in Buffalo for my lifetime.

That settlement is on. Kroemke.  
 

The NFL, with this settlement, is never going back to STL.  They don’t have to and will turn their back in that town.  Zero chance 24 owners would EVER vote for a city that sued them.  Come on!

 

And you miss the point of PSE putting their statement on record..

[HardyBoy]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:21 PM, eSJayDee said:

A couple of things come to mind -

1) So if this is the value of losing an NFL franchise, this should influence how much NYS & Erie contribute to keeping the Bills in Buffalo.

2) I assume the St Louis area is (far?) more than 1M people.  Is less than $1000/head really worth losing your football team? (I realize govt cost/revenue doesn't get apportioned that way, but I live ~300 miles from Buffalo & I certainly don't want the Bills living & would consider that remuneration pittance.)

 

A $1 billion dollar stadium paid off over however many years the loans would be for is a whole lot more than $1 billion.

 

Check out how much the total cost of the Miami Marlins stadium is going to cost Miami. It's astounding.

[Big Turk]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

That settlement is on. Kroemke.  
 

The NFL, with this settlement, is never going back to STL.  They don’t have to and will turn their back in that town.  Zero chance 24 owners would EVER vote for a city that sued them.  Come on!

 

And you miss the point of PSE putting their statement on record..

 

Not necessarily...read the previous post to yours

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

That settlement is on. Kroemke.  
 

The NFL, with this settlement, is never going back to STL.  They don’t have to and will turn their back in that town.  Zero chance 24 owners would EVER vote for a city that sued them.  Come on!

 

And you miss the point of PSE putting their statement on record..

 

Personally, as long as the teams that didn't vote for the move (the Bills are one) don't have to pay for it, I don't care who pays for it exactly.

 

And why not give STL a franchise in the future?  The expansion fee will be enormous and they can (and will) change the by-laws so they don't get burned next time.  Or maybe, just maybe, negotiate in good faith next time?  But eh, whatever.  Not my city and there are other markets.

 

What was the point other than reminding the county and state (and everyone else) what they should already know?

[Big Turk]

26 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Personally, as long as the teams that didn't vote for the move (the Bills are one) don't have to pay for it, I don't care who pays for it exactly.

 

And why not give STL a franchise in the future?  The expansion fee will be enormous and they can (and will) change the by-laws so they don't get burned next time.  Or maybe, just maybe, negotiate in good faith next time?  But eh, whatever.  Not my city and there are other markets.

 

What was the point other than reminding the county and state (and everyone else) what they should already know?

 

Kinda doesn't work that way...once teams votes, if they have enough votes, the whole NFL approved it.

 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Kinda doesn't work that way...once teams votes, if they have enough votes, the whole NFL approved it.

 

Who actually pays for the settlement is a decision to be made by the owners.  If Kroenke doesn't have to pay for it all, even though he said he would, I can see the owners who didn't vote yes to the move saying they shouldn't be on the hook for it.

[Big Turk]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Who actually pays for the settlement is a decision to be made by the owners.  If Kroenke doesn't have to pay for it all, even though he said he would, I can see the owners who didn't vote yes to the move saying they shouldn't be on the hook for it.

 

Did you not read the update as to WHY he doesn't think he should have to pay it?

 

Think he would have a pretty strong case if two of the other teams leaked documents and info to Saint Louis that incriminated him because they wanted to force him to stay so the NFL would approve their rival stadium bid

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

Did you not read the update as to WHY he doesn't think he should have to pay it?

 

Think he would have a pretty strong case if two of the other teams leaked documents and info to Saint Louis that incriminated him because they wanted to force him to stay so the NFL would approve their rival stadium bid

 

It's speculation as of right now.  And regardless of who leaked the documents, Kroenke was still at-fault.  Kroenke might have cause to sue those teams.

[Big Turk]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's speculation as of right now.  And regardless of who leaked the documents, Kroenke was still at-fault.  Kroenke might have cause to sue those teams.

 

It is but where there is smoke there usually is fire

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Personally, as long as the teams that didn't vote for the move (the Bills are one) don't have to pay for it, I don't care who pays for it exactly.

 

And why not give STL a franchise in the future?  The expansion fee will be enormous and they can (and will) change the by-laws so they don't get burned next time.  Or maybe, just maybe, negotiate in good faith next time?  But eh, whatever.  Not my city and there are other markets.

 

What was the point other than reminding the county and state (and everyone else) what they should already know?

 

Why do you "personally" care who pays?

 

Why would they reward a city that just cost them 800 million and will not fund a stadium for an NFL team...when there are other markets?

 

You already answered your question in your post.  Up front threats are part of an open negotiation (good faith).   "Get it done now or we're leaving".  

[LabattBlue]

Is the OP trying to set a Guinness book of world records for longest thread title? 
😂

[Arkady Renko]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It's speculation as of right now.  And regardless of who leaked the documents, Kroenke was still at-fault.  Kroenke might have cause to sue those teams.

And the emails would have been discoverable in litigation anyway. 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why do you "personally" care who pays?

 

Why would they reward a city that just cost them 800 million and will not fund a stadium for an NFL team...when there are other markets?

 

You already answered your question in your post.  Up front threats are part of an open negotiation (good faith).   "Get it done now or we're leaving".  

 

Because those who didn't approve the move shouldn't have to pay for it.  It should be on Kroenke, but if he succeeds in weaseling out, it should next be the owners who approved the move.

 

Because STL is the 23rd largest TV market.  Only 2 (Portland and Sacramento/Modesto) are higher that don't have NFL teams and I doubt they want to put a 4th team in California.  More TV money to overcome what they lost, in time, can overcome spite.

 

So you're saying that by putting it on record, it made it "good faith"?  No, what will make it “good faith” is not negotiating with another city at the same time.  Again, it's something everyone should know because (we now agree) there are other markets out there.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Doc

[Big Turk]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why do you "personally" care who pays?

 

Why would they reward a city that just cost them 800 million and will not fund a stadium for an NFL team...when there are other markets?

 

You already answered your question in your post.  Up front threats are part of an open negotiation (good faith).   "Get it done now or we're leaving".  

 

Except the opposite happened here...he was saying they were trying to work out a deal all along while actually working on getting out of there behind the scenes.  That's the opposite of good faith.  

 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Except the opposite happened here...he was saying they were trying to work out a deal all along while actually working on getting out of there behind the scenes.  That's the opposite of good faith. 

 

He was talking about the Bills. 

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He was talking about the Bills. 

Gotcha

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Because those who didn't approve the move shouldn't have to pay for it.  It should be on Kroenke, but if he succeeds in weaseling out, it should next be the owners who approved the move.

 

Because STL is the 23rd largest TV market.  Only 2 (Portland and Sacramento/Modesto) are higher that don't have NFL teams and I doubt they want to put a 4th team in California.  More TV money to overcome what they lost, in time, can overcome spite.

 

So you're saying that by putting it on record, it made it "good faith"?  No, what will make it “good faith” is not negotiating with another city at the same time.  Again, it's something everyone should know because (we now agree) there are other markets out there.

if his  indemnification agreement holds up, Kroenke pays it all, otherwise they would all pay. 
 

Your repeated contention that only the teams that voted to approve the move should pay makes no sense whatsoever,  unless you are also saying the teams who voted against it should forfeit their split of the relocation fee.  Have you made that argument somewhere? 

[Arkady Renko]

20 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Personally, as long as the teams that didn't vote for the move (the Bills are one) don't have to pay for it, I don't care who pays for it exactly.

 

And why not give STL a franchise in the future?  The expansion fee will be enormous and they can (and will) change the by-laws so they don't get burned next time.  Or maybe, just maybe, negotiate in good faith next time?  But eh, whatever.  Not my city and there are other markets.

 

What was the point other than reminding the county and state (and everyone else) what they should already know?

Bills voted for it. 

[Doc]

51 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

if his  indemnification agreement holds up, Kroenke pays it all, otherwise they would all pay. 
 

Your repeated contention that only the teams that voted to approve the move should pay makes no sense whatsoever,  unless you are also saying the teams who voted against it should forfeit their split of the relocation fee.  Have you made that argument somewhere? 

5 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said:

Bills voted for it. 

 

You're right.  I was going of a (very) old article.  Never mind.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You're right.  I was going of a (very) old article.  Never mind.

you may answer the question…