Skip to content

Rams PSLs contained language regarding relocation, lawsuits

Zz02ODNkZmQ1MzhlZjlkYTE5ODliZGFlMzYzODFhYzg5Mg== AP

As expected, the PSL agreements signed by folks who held the right to purchase tickets to Rams games in St. Louis contained language aimed at allowing the team to leave town — and preventing the PSL holders from suing.

Randy Karraker of 101 ESPN in St. Louis forwarded to PFT a copy of Section 12 of his PSL agreement, which states: “Licensee acknowledges that this Agreement remains valid only as long as NFL football is played at the Stadium by the Rams, up to a maximum of thirty (30) years. Licensee acknowledges that Licensee has no claim against the Rams with respect to this [PSL] and/or its termination whatsoever. Licensee understands and acknowledges the possibility that the Rams may not play its gams in the Stadium or St. Louis for the entire term contemplated by this License. Licensee expressly agrees not to sue the Rams for damages or injunctive relief relates to this [PSL], including without limitation should the Rams not play its home games in the Stadium or in St. Louis for any reason.”

The Rams will argue that this language defeats the lawsuit filed by PSL holders who believe they have rights to purchase tickets to Rams games through 2025. The plaintiffs likely will claim in response that Section 12 should not be enforced, since the entire agreement is what the law calls a “contract of adhesion.” The term refers to a contract that provides no opportunity to engage in meaningful negotiation and requires consumers to agree to any and all potentially onerous terms in order to purchase the thing they want to buy.

Ultimately, the question will turn on the manner in which a court in Missouri handles the situation. With the Rams leaving Missouri, that dynamic could work against the team, forcing it to potentially honor the rights that thousands had secured to attend Rams games for another decade.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Los Angeles Rams, Rumor Mill
43 Responses to “Rams PSLs contained language regarding relocation, lawsuits”
  1. kelsey59 says: Jan 23, 2016 2:21 AM

    Lawyers have ruined this country.

  2. jimmysee says: Jan 23, 2016 5:10 AM

    The thing that stands out to me here is there is no promise of the Rams being there for even one year. That may mean the agreement between the team and PSL purchasers is not supported by sufficient consideration and amounts to an unenforceable gratuitous promise.

    If there had been a minimum term commitment, even one year, that would not be the case — but the lawyers, no doubt operating in a take it or leave it winner take all mentality, did not even offer that.

    If that is the case, and this is an agreement not supported by consideration, it is not an enforceable contract. But I believe the extent of damages may be refund of the PSL fees, not a requirement that the Rams remain in St.Louis to play games.

  3. stipez says: Jan 23, 2016 5:41 AM

    Who knew that a lawyer would make such a good NFL reporter.

  4. swive says: Jan 23, 2016 6:33 AM

    I don’t know much about the law but it would seem unethical if not illegal to get payment for something then not offer anything in return. The team gets the money from fans, but then can leave the area and gets to keep the money with nothing being offered or given in exchange to the people who paid? That doesn’t seem equitable or fair –

  5. gwhite13 says: Jan 23, 2016 7:13 AM

    As a layman I read the PSL is tied to the team more so than the venue. I vote license travels with the team. Welcome to L.A. St.Louis fans !

  6. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 23, 2016 8:12 AM

    That just says anyone who bought one of those PSLs knowing the team might well move was pretty stupid.

  7. jo6pack says: Jan 23, 2016 8:21 AM

    Kroenke has the money to spare; at the very least refund the people of St. Louis. He got what he wanted, he doesn’t need to add insult to injury.

  8. ravensfan56 says: Jan 23, 2016 8:38 AM

    The NFL has gone downhill quickly. I remember when Ravens tickets used to cost $40. My same seat is a $100 now. Surely, inflation did not go up that dramatically. It’s really sickening nowadays. A family of four spends hundreds of dollars to be surrounded by a bunch of drunks and people talking about their fantasy football teams nonstop. I miss the 90’s.

  9. sjm1717 says: Jan 23, 2016 9:03 AM

    At least one not from West Virginia law school lol…let’s get somebody from a quality school please

  10. timpiker says: Jan 23, 2016 9:09 AM

    So my defense is – I didn’t read the fine print before I forked over thousands of dollars. And only a court in St Louis would go along with that.

  11. craigruby20 says: Jan 23, 2016 9:11 AM

    This really looks bad for the NFL. They should just compensate PSL holders without it going to court.

  12. bmorepositive123 says: Jan 23, 2016 9:13 AM

    In that quote the word “games” is missed spelled… You think it’s actually spelled wrong in the official contract or you guys couldn’t copy and paste the quote correctly?

  13. cowboysdude says: Jan 23, 2016 9:18 AM

    The NFL cares about one thing… The NFL. Fans aren’t even a part of the game anymore…MONEY… MONEY… MONEY…

    The owners and the NFL hold cities hostage and then make them pay.. taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for anything other than buying tickets and merchandise… time for them to fund their own stadiums.

  14. ickeywoods says: Jan 23, 2016 9:48 AM

    Rams may not play its gams?

  15. corporatemediaprostitute says: Jan 23, 2016 9:58 AM

    Stan: “Now go home and your shinebox!”

  16. eagleswin says: Jan 23, 2016 10:01 AM

    They should either have to honor the PSLs or refund the remaining years. PSLs are a stupid money vehicle for the owners anyway.

  17. alonestartexan says: Jan 23, 2016 10:02 AM

    Stan Kroenke is a POS, how anyone who’s combined family worth is over $10 billion dollars could move a professional sports franchise out of their hometown/state while they’re still actually making a profit where they were is beyond me. This man has no heart.

    He’s going to spend over $4 billion to build a stadium in LA, pay relocation fees, and build team facilities when he could have spent 1/4th of that in St. Louis.

    E. Stanley Kroenke should be ashamed of himself.

  18. granadafan says: Jan 23, 2016 10:04 AM

    Hmm pretty sneaky language in the contract. That said, I hope Stan and the Rams get taken to the cleaners in court. I have zero respect for greedy owners who move teams just because they couldn’t fleece the taxpayers into giving them a free lavish palace. I’m an LA resident and won’t be going to any Rams games.

  19. bigjdve says: Jan 23, 2016 10:09 AM

    Yup just one more example of an entitled group of people. Read your contract – I didn’t see anything that would offer negotiation as an option. Looks a lot like the team covered it’s bases.

    Maybe if you wanted a shot at this, you should’ve paid more attention to all of the meetings over the last few years and sued for negotiating rights BEFORE the decision to move and BEFORE the city said sod off.

  20. Professor Fate says: Jan 23, 2016 10:21 AM

    No different than any other “agree or don’t use” terms of use. All those excruciatingly long agreements you click without reading when downloading software? Same thing. And chances are the PSL purchasers in St. Louis didn’t read the contract before signing.

  21. Professor Fate says: Jan 23, 2016 10:25 AM

    Florio: Which part of the following opens the door to a lawsuit regarding the team’s move?

    (“)Licensee expressly agrees not to sue the Rams for damages or injunctive relief relates to this [PSL], including without limitation should the Rams not play its home games in the Stadium or in St. Louis for any reason.”

    Wouldn’t the owner’s team of attorneys have put this in specifically to protect the organization should it move away from St. Louis? The language includes not only the current stadium (under the assumption the team moved to a new stadium in St. Louis, making this PSL invalid), but the city itself. I’m confused by your statement that the organization moving away from St. Louis makes it more likely PSL holders would win a lawsuit. The language in the PSL agreement seems to directly address that possibility.

  22. nolanbctalk says: Jan 23, 2016 10:26 AM

    I hope the fans win and these one-sided PSLs that are designed to screw the strongest supporters of a team become extinct.

  23. vetdana says: Jan 23, 2016 10:37 AM

    “contract of adhesion.” The term refers to a contract that provides no opportunity to engage in meaningful negotiation and requires consumers to agree to any and all potentially onerous terms in order to purchase the thing they want to buy……herein lies the rub….how is the Missouri Judge going to see it ?…I am rooting for the plaintiffs !

  24. typicalnipple says: Jan 23, 2016 10:45 AM

    Trashy franchise.

  25. duffelbagsports says: Jan 23, 2016 10:53 AM

    More money for lawyers

  26. grantepalmer says: Jan 23, 2016 10:56 AM

    This is why billionaires are billionaires. I’m guessing Kroenecke’s lawyers will be better than whoever the fans get.

  27. stew48 says: Jan 23, 2016 11:00 AM

    Except, perhaps, for a 10 year old, nothing burdensome, cruel or unjust about the terms. Only a judge who is also a season ticket holder and lifetime St. Louis radical would permit such a suit.

  28. db105 says: Jan 23, 2016 11:02 AM

    LA Rams PSL buyers beware

  29. arzcardinals says: Jan 23, 2016 11:13 AM

    I agree with the PSL owners. The right thing to do is an NFL team is going to move cities is to pay them back in full. Their money was taken and ran off with. These are hard working people who diserve compensation.

  30. BIG RED says: Jan 23, 2016 11:29 AM

    Nelson: Ha Ha !

  31. SparkyGump says: Jan 23, 2016 11:53 AM

    It would be nice to see a billionaire pay an early termination fee for once.

  32. vicvinegar00 says: Jan 23, 2016 11:54 AM

    I still can’t believe people pay large amounts of money for the right to buy expensive tickets.

  33. dejadoh says: Jan 23, 2016 12:28 PM

    PSLs are for suckers. The “fan” should understand all of the language before purchase. A right to buy a ticket to what (and what/how the order is decided)?

  34. jmethane says: Jan 23, 2016 12:34 PM

    To RAMS games no less

  35. eselv73 says: Jan 23, 2016 12:40 PM

    PSLs are such a scam. The Rams should honor them, but we all know they won’t.

  36. 8oneanddones says: Jan 23, 2016 12:45 PM

    Robert Kraft built his new stadium without public money or PSLs, and he’s still rich.

  37. 6250claimer says: Jan 23, 2016 1:05 PM

    PSLs should be illegal. Won’t ever happen though, the politicians who could make it happen are all bought and paid for by the owners. That said, the only recourse for fans is to NOT buy them.

    When does the NFL’s greed hit a wall? Ticket prices and player salaries are escalating far faster than the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, even the “poor” in this country have 65″ HDTVs. We’re nearing a breaking point where more people say “screw it, I’m staying home” and the NFL has to, at some point, back off the crazy pricing and PSL schemes.

  38. diegreed says: Jan 23, 2016 5:03 PM

    No kelsey59 Greed has killed this country. Maybe we will get lucky and the dollar will devalue and these greedy billionsiresxwill be no better off then us!

  39. ybunthitjacks says: Jan 23, 2016 5:52 PM

    I love how the system is stacked against the average person. The only financial losers in all of this are the fans and taxpayers. The owner and league win big. Our spineless politicians at all levels just march on too afraid to make right to bought to care.

  40. blackula72 says: Jan 23, 2016 8:46 PM

    The greed will only stop when the fans/public hits them in the wallet. Not only are psls the epitome of double dipping some teams use tax dollars to do it. Maybe if the fans boycott attending team games, refuse to purchase team merchandise and watch the games on one of the black market websites therefore affecting network advertising dollars. That would cause the networks to also place pressure on the teams to abandon their greedy policies. Everyone would be surprised at how fast the teams would change.

  41. beavertonsteve says: Jan 23, 2016 8:55 PM

    Saul Goodman would have locked up a seven figure settlement by now.

  42. mdintino1420 says: Jan 24, 2016 8:42 PM

    The people who are trying to sue Kroenke need to get a life and move on. Put those efforts into getting St. Louis an expansion team. Kroenke didn’t become a billionaire by getting tripped up by some angry ignorant fans. He is a shrewd business man. No judge in his right mind would even take the case.

  43. craigbhill says: Jan 28, 2016 4:14 PM

    OF COURSE this lawsuit was idiotic, filed for imbeciles so a lawyer could collect legal fees from them. When you buy a ticket to a facility, it’s to that facility. And it’s not good for the life of the buyer. And it can’t be gifted or sold. And it can’t be used for another facility in a city a couple thousand miles away. This has to be explained? Only in St Louis.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!