The city and county of St. Louis and the Regional Convention & Sports Complex Authority are suing the NFL "over the relocation of the Rams 15 months ago," according to a front-page piece by Jim Thomas of the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH. The 52-page suit, filed yesterday in St. Louis Circuit Court, lists the NFL and all 32 teams as defendants and "seeks damages and restitution of profits." The plaintiffs claim the Rams and the NFL "made intentionally false statements, unjustly enriched themselves" and "interfered with business expectations." The suit also claims St. Louis has lost an estimated $1.85-3.5M a year in "amusement and ticket tax revenue with the departure of the Rams." It says the city also has lost about $7.5M in property tax and $1.4M in sales tax revenue, plus "millions" in earning taxes. The suit contains five counts, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation against the Rams and team Owner Stan Kroenke, fraudulent misrepresentation (against all defendants) and "tortious interference with business expectancy (against all defendants except the Rams)" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 4/13).
SHOW ME STATE SHOWS NFL: PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio wrote the plaintiffs make a "strong claim about the league’s rules regarding franchise relocation" apart from "pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the team’s commitment to St. Louis and intended move" to L.A. The league will "now be working diligently to defend itself against the lawsuit, which will likely remain in the Missouri court system because the Chiefs operate in Missouri." This "eliminates the ability of the league to take the case to federal court, where defendants without a clear connection to a given state are more likely to get a more fair shake" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 4/12). In L.A., Gary Klein notes the lawsuit "cites public or published statements" made by Kroenke, Rams Exec VP/Football Operations & COO Kevin Demoff and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell (L.A. TIMES, 4/13). PFT's Florio said, "Any time you can prove that someone said one thing and did something else, and you can use their words against them, that's what this complaint does in multiple different respects." Florio said the suit "harvests quotes" from Kroenke and Demoff, regarding their "commitment to St. Louis." Florio: "You weave those together into a tapestry that would cause an objective person to look at it and say, ‘Boy, you guys really did make it sound like you weren't going to move, and as you were making it sound like you weren't going to move, the people in St. Louis were spending time and money to try to accommodate you with a new stadium’” (“PFT,” NBCSN, 4/13).
SINGLING JONES OUT? In Dallas, Brandon George reports the lawsuit "takes direct aim" at Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones' "involvement in helping the Rams relocate" to L.A. Almost a full page of the lawsuit claims Jones "intentionally interfered" with the plaintiffs' "reasonable business expectancy" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 4/13). The POST-DISPATCH's Thomas notes the suit claims that Jones "provided the blueprint for the deal that ultimately received enough votes for relocation" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 4/13).
NO HARM IN TRYING: In St. Louis, Ben Frederickson writes under the header, "Suit Against NFL Is A Long Shot Worth Trying." An uphill battle is "worth fighting," as the "little guy wins" sometimes. The suit is a "clinical description of how the Rams repeatedly made a mockery of the NFL’s relocation guidelines while the league, which once trumpeted the importance of said guidelines, pretended they did not exist." Kroenke and Jones "sneered at the relocation guidelines," while Goodell "ignored them as he dismissed St. Louis along with inadequate stadium efforts from Oakland and San Diego." When the owners "sheepishly cast their secret ballots" in January '16, they "made a mockery of them." Frederickson: "This isn’t about the bad lease that gave Kroenke the loophole he needed to leave for Los Angeles. This is about the lies told by Kroenke and those he pays that convinced those in St. Louis a solution was possible" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 4/13).
COULD OAKLAND DO THE SAME THING? CSNBAYAREA.com's Ray Ratto wrote the "jilted Missourians" are "prohibitive underdogs" in St. Louis' suit against the NFL. Meanwhile, the city and county of Oakland "did not put its best shoe forward in trying to lure the Raiders into staying" or other owners into "rejecting the team’s pleas for geographical relief." Oakland did not "fall all over itself to meet the league’s typically extortionate demands." It is clear everyone "got what it needed out of the Raiders’ move." The city and county "could concentrate on guiding the A’s into activity on their own" new ballpark. The team could go where Raiders Owner Mark Davis has been "agitating for it to go for at least three years -- somewhere else" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 4/12).
