Would have welcomed more commentary around opening up the books. As I understand the NFL and possibly the Kroenke’s had to file this information to the court by 28 September, otherwise they could face a fine. Us UK Arsenal fans are watching this case with interest
I’m clearly on STL’s side but I also don’t think the NFL cares about a piddly $1k daily fine. They will do whatever it takes to not open up their books and be transparent.
I thought the fraud portion of all of this is what the basis of the lawsuit is actually about and not the stadium lease? She keeps bringing up the stadium lease as though that is the basis for the suite unless I'm missing something? idk
it's her legal opinion, I've talked to 3 people in the last few weeks about this here on UA-cam, 2 lawyers and a reporter, 2 local and one national, all 3 had differing opinions as to the outcome
@@CharlieMarlowSTL oh yeah I get the legal opinion part but i thought the legal opinion would be based on what the actual case is based on which is the 'fraud' portion that she actually agrees about and not the stadium lease which to my knowledge, is not what the suit is about. but i digress..
Thanks for your work on all this bro... The more time passes, the more people forget... Wish we could get a deal like the spirit of st. Louis guys got from the NBA when they grabbed up the ABA teams!
it's her legal opinion, she thinks it's not a contract, it's a guideline but that STL would likely win a trial based on the venue, she also thinks there's a fraud case to be made
The dome wasn't up to standard, but a new stadium was, why wasn't that good enough? Would you rather play in an upgraded dome or brand new stadium on the riverfront? Nobody ever mentions the new stadium plans. The proposal was so much better than the upgraded dome
Legally the Rams could go year to year tho after the Dome wasn’t first tier. I don’t think anybody is arguing that the Rams couldn’t legally leave. It’s how they did it without negotiating in good faith.
I would argue that my LLC is bound directly to my internal documents as to whether I am allowed to keep the business, and my personal funds separate. The NFL's mistake, in my wholly unknowledgeable opinion in law, was to claim they were following their guidelines when they quite clearly were not. I believe this is where the contract part of it comes in. As I write this, she at least brings this up which shows my instinct to be a valid one
@@CharlieMarlowSTL I also haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that even at the end the Rams single game attendance was more than the the Cardinals single game attendance. It was WAY down because of bad teams, and everyone knew they were out of StL by that point, but the way they functionally slandered St. Louis was ridiculous at best because if that fact.
They decided they were leaving in at least as early as 2012 so no it had nothing to do with the dome and you would know that if you were actually doing your research homegirl. And an internal document? No those were the terms the NFL gave the city of St. Louis to keep the team! He bought the land in 2012 and lied about it! The dome is irrelevant once the city offed to build a new stadium for the team. Almost everything she said was wrong. That was frustrating to listen to.
I’ve posted 3 longform interviews on this here on UA-cam, 2 lawyers and 1 reporter, 2 local and 1 national, and all 3 had differing opinions as to the outcome.
But she obviously believes if she looks directly into the camera and speaks confidently, she is therefore knowledgeable. I wonder how this interview would go if held today, Nov 3rd 2021?
Would have welcomed more commentary around opening up the books. As I understand the NFL and possibly the Kroenke’s had to file this information to the court by 28 September, otherwise they could face a fine. Us UK Arsenal fans are watching this case with interest
I’m clearly on STL’s side but I also don’t think the NFL cares about a piddly $1k daily fine. They will do whatever it takes to not open up their books and be transparent.
Detrimental reliance on policy in effect at
time of move.
I thought the fraud portion of all of this is what the basis of the lawsuit is actually about and not the stadium lease? She keeps bringing up the stadium lease as though that is the basis for the suite unless I'm missing something? idk
it's her legal opinion, I've talked to 3 people in the last few weeks about this here on UA-cam, 2 lawyers and a reporter, 2 local and one national, all 3 had differing opinions as to the outcome
@@CharlieMarlowSTL oh yeah I get the legal opinion part but i thought the legal opinion would be based on what the actual case is based on which is the 'fraud' portion that she actually agrees about and not the stadium lease which to my knowledge, is not what the suit is about. but i digress..
@@manatarmsslaps from what I’ve gathered tho, the essence of the entire case is the contract vs guideline argument
@@CharlieMarlowSTL gotcha
Thanks for your work on all this bro... The more time passes, the more people forget... Wish we could get a deal like the spirit of st. Louis guys got from the NBA when they grabbed up the ABA teams!
Waiting on Randy Karraker’s response up in here!!!
I’ve talked to 3 people longform on this, 2 lawyers and 1 reporter, 2 local and 1 national, and all 3 had differing opinions as to the outcome.
Based on what she says, Does this suggest if this is appealed it will be thrown out on the basis of not being a breach of contract?
it's her legal opinion, she thinks it's not a contract, it's a guideline but that STL would likely win a trial based on the venue, she also thinks there's a fraud case to be made
Nót a breach of cóñtráct case.
The dome wasn't up to standard, but a new stadium was, why wasn't that good enough? Would you rather play in an upgraded dome or brand new stadium on the riverfront? Nobody ever mentions the new stadium plans. The proposal was so much better than the upgraded dome
Legally the Rams could go year to year tho after the Dome wasn’t first tier. I don’t think anybody is arguing that the Rams couldn’t legally leave. It’s how they did it without negotiating in good faith.
I would argue that my LLC is bound directly to my internal documents as to whether I am allowed to keep the business, and my personal funds separate. The NFL's mistake, in my wholly unknowledgeable opinion in law, was to claim they were following their guidelines when they quite clearly were not. I believe this is where the contract part of it comes in. As I write this, she at least brings this up which shows my instinct to be a valid one
yeah the Rams were allowed to leave, but they committed fraud in doing so by lying and not negotiating in good faith
@@CharlieMarlowSTL we'll find out if it's legal fraud, but I agree that it's certainly morally fraudulent.
@@CharlieMarlowSTL I also haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that even at the end the Rams single game attendance was more than the the Cardinals single game attendance. It was WAY down because of bad teams, and everyone knew they were out of StL by that point, but the way they functionally slandered St. Louis was ridiculous at best because if that fact.
That is why they believeď the leágue Króenke and speñt the moñey on the stádium projéct. Reasonble to do añd a winning case.
yes sir!
They decided they were leaving in at least as early as 2012 so no it had nothing to do with the dome and you would know that if you were actually doing your research homegirl. And an internal document? No those were the terms the NFL gave the city of St. Louis to keep the team! He bought the land in 2012 and lied about it! The dome is irrelevant once the city offed to build a new stadium for the team. Almost everything she said was wrong. That was frustrating to listen to.
this was her legal opinion and it was from September 30th, almost 2-months later I think she would admit it's not going the way she thought it would
It didn't go the way you all thought it would go either... Los Angeles Rams Superbowl Champions 🏆!
This lady has no idea what's she's talking about
I’ve posted 3 longform interviews on this here on UA-cam, 2 lawyers and 1 reporter, 2 local and 1 national, and all 3 had differing opinions as to the outcome.
But she obviously believes if she looks directly into the camera and speaks confidently, she is therefore knowledgeable. I wonder how this interview would go if held today, Nov 3rd 2021?
@Dr.Sanitary43, No... Just because you don't like her legal opinion doesn't mean she's wrong.