March league meeting to deal with Rams relocation lawsuit liability

[stuvian]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/17/st-louis-settlement-allocation-remains-unresolved/

 

Kroenke's celebrations could be short lived. Maybe this is why Goodell wants and extension now. He'll want to cash out if his legal eagles wrote a bum agreement on which Kroenke could sue the league and the other 31 owners for sticking him with the St. Louis lawsuit bill.

 

Meanwhile I can get 5 cents per empty beer can at the recycling depot.

 

 

[Mike in Horseheads]

53 minutes ago, stuvian said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/17/st-louis-settlement-allocation-remains-unresolved/

 

Kroenke's celebrations could be short lived. Maybe this is why Goodell wants and extension now. He'll want to cash out if his legal eagles wrote a bum agreement on which Kroenke could sue the league and the other 31 owners for sticking him with the St. Louis lawsuit bill.

 

Meanwhile I can get 5 cents per empty beer can at the recycling depot.

 

 

Some of the places here give 6c now! Ya might want to drink more and cash in on this 20% guaranteed return.

[Don Otreply]

I tried to care about billionaires law suites against other billionaires but just can’t muster any actual concern..,, think I’m gonna have another beer 🍺 

[Ya Digg?]

Perhaps I’m not fully understanding this whole thing, but man this dude is a scumbag. Buys the team in St.Louis and “negotiates” in good faith for a new stadium but really had no intention of keeping them there, says he wants to move the team to LA and tells the league don’t worry I’ll take care of the costs, gets sued for moving the team so he then threatens to sue the league if all of the other owners don’t chip in and pay for this lawsuit. Pretty hard to swindle billionaires out of money but it looks like he may do just that 

 

looking at it from a Bills perspective, if the league had to cover the cost of the lawsuit, does this cut into the money they would be willing to give to the Bills for a new stadium? 

[stuvian]

29 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:

Perhaps I’m not fully understanding this whole thing, but man this dude is a scumbag. Buys the team in St.Louis and “negotiates” in good faith for a new stadium but really had no intention of keeping them there, says he wants to move the team to LA and tells the league don’t worry I’ll take care of the costs, gets sued for moving the team so he then threatens to sue the league if all of the other owners don’t chip in and pay for this lawsuit. Pretty hard to swindle billionaires out of money but it looks like he may do just that 

 

looking at it from a Bills perspective, if the league had to cover the cost of the lawsuit, does this cut into the money they would be willing to give to the Bills for a new stadium? 

 

I suspect these are different pools of funds of which the league probably has many

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Immediate removal of NFL franchises from millionaire / billionaire ownership!  All franchises now follow Green Bay model!

*
Now, you'll excuse me while I go storm the Bastille, or the Winter Palace. 😁

[SectionC3]

Whomever wrote that contract is in trouble.  Indemnification agreements are construed against the drafter.  I believe the key word is "costs."  Does it mean legal fees, paperclips, etc.?  Or does it mean settlement funds?  To my understanding, that is the nature of the dispute. 

[Doc]

The settlement is a cost.  With the contract specifying "including legal fees and other litigation expenses" Kroenke can't reasonably claim that "cost" only meant those.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Doc

[NoHuddleKelly12]

On 2/20/2022 at 9:30 AM, SectionC3 said:

Whomever wrote that contract is in trouble.  Indemnification agreements are construed against the drafter.  I believe the key word is "costs."  Does it mean legal fees, paperclips, etc.?  Or does it mean settlement funds?  To my understanding, that is the nature of the dispute. 

Depends—most Ks drafted at this kind of level, you would expect will also have a boilerplate type of additional provision specifically stating that any ambiguity in the K will not be construed against the drafter, and candidly probably went through so many rewrites/redline versions (every party’s atty has to justify their own costs lol) that it would be difficult to find a section that was not edited at all to begin with. Just imho though. 

[HOUSE]

The owners are broke and this will only make it worse

[BADOLBILZ]

On 2/20/2022 at 12:10 AM, Mike in Horseheads said:

Some of the places here give 6c now! Ya might want to drink more and cash in on this 20% guaranteed return.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

On 2/19/2022 at 11:12 PM, stuvian said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/17/st-louis-settlement-allocation-remains-unresolved/

 

Kroenke's celebrations could be short lived. Maybe this is why Goodell wants and extension now. He'll want to cash out if his legal eagles wrote a bum agreement on which Kroenke could sue the league and the other 31 owners for sticking him with the St. Louis lawsuit bill.

 

Meanwhile I can get 5 cents per empty beer can at the recycling depot.

 

 

 

 

He's not exposed here. The owners paid for the lawyers to write the indemnification contract with Kroenke, not Goodell.

 

In fact will decide if Kroenke is solely on the hook.  If he does, Kroenke can take that to court and try to say the "costs', don't include "settlements".. 

 

This isn't Goodell's problem.  It's Terry's/Jerry's/Bob's/Stan's......

[SectionC3]

5 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Depends—most Ks drafted at this kind of level, you would expect will also have a boilerplate type of additional provision specifically stating that any ambiguity in the K will not be construed against the drafter, and candidly probably went through so many rewrites/redline versions (every party’s atty has to justify their own costs lol) that it would be difficult to find a section that was not edited at all to begin with. Just imho though. 

One would think, but they also blew the "costs" issue.  I'm not confident in anything that occurred here.  And, it may have been such that the boilerplate language could not come in as a result of negotiation.  Happens all the time in the construction context.  Who knows.  We could both be way off given how crazy thing thing is here.  

On 2/20/2022 at 10:23 AM, Doc said:

The settlement is a cost.  With the contract specifying "including legal fees and other litigation expenses" Kroenke can't reasonably claim that "cost" only meant those.

 

Are costs damages?  Are funds dedicated to settlement damages? Or are they something else, e.g., compensatory payments, whatever.  It all depends on how the contract is written.   But costs typically doesn't mean damages, etc.  It refers to things like office supplies, paper clips, travel expenses, and filling fees. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Are costs damages?  Are funds dedicated to settlement damages? Or are they something else, e.g., compensatory payments, whatever.  It all depends on how the contract is written.   But costs typically doesn't mean damages, etc.  It refers to things like office supplies, paper clips, travel expenses, and filling fees. 

 

But that would be under "legal fees and other litigation expenses," right?  And that was specified in the contract.  So if you remove "costs" from "in respect of any costs" and replace it with "legal fees and other litigation expenses," you would get "in respect of any legal fees and other litigation expenses, including legal fees and other litigation expenses" which is redundant, meaning "costs" was meant to refer to damages "costs."

[SectionC3]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

 

But that would be under "legal fees and other litigation expenses," right?  And that was specified in the contract.  So if you remove "costs" from "in respect of any costs" and replace it with "legal fees and other litigation expenses," you would get "in respect of any legal fees and other litigation expenses, including legal fees and other litigation expenses" which is redundant, meaning "costs" was meant to refer to damages "costs."

It all depends what the contract says.  But typically costs are not equivalent to damages or to settlement proceeds.  I haven’t seen the contract, so I can’t say.  The way the NFL wants to use “costs,” however, is unusual. 

[frostbitmic]

To be fair, the league should pay for everything that Kroenke is looking for and then award him 5 more Super Bowls in his building.