New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Your post says it all.
It is not factual to say that the NFL can force the Rams to stay

As for a precedent, the Los Angeles Rams moved without approval

My post does say it all, that basically says none of us have any idea what constitutes legal precedent in this case. Once again, a definitive link to someone with enough knowledge to be able to say what is fact and what is not would be helpful. I don't really remember the ins and outs of the first Rams move. Is there a ruling that established legal precedent? I can't remember anyone saying there was. Again, a link to the definitive ruling would be helpful.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,892
Name
Stu
Yeah, I'm pretty much going off of what I have been hearing on the radio. They dug into particulars that I can't even remember but in the end they believed that the team being in LA would not put any money into the other owners' pockets. They did touch on the tv deal and stated that they already have a tv deal in the LA market and how that wouldn't change much.
Yeah man - They have a deal in place and I could see this as an opportunity for the NFL to increase their TV deal - internationally as well - as LA is more of a world hub. But that is all unknown right now.

I'm with you and many fans in that I just want it over. I'm good with where ever they play. I would feel terrible for the fans in St Louis that have supported my Rams for the entire time they have been there. I also understand the LA fans wanting the team many of them feel was taken from them by the biotch showgirl.

One thing I would add is that if there are members on here that only care about the Rams moving to LA and would leave once this is all settled, I'd be fine with them leaving now. This is a RAMS board. The fans here are from all over the world and the one thing we all should have in common is that we are St Louis Rams fans because that is where our Rams play. I can understand the desire to get the team back in LA but after 20 years, but if they are only coming on here due to the potential move, I'm just not liking that. On the flip side, I can understand why some St Louis fans would stop caring about the Rams if they moved. A great many LA fans gave up on the Rams when they moved. If someone's allegiance is to their city or state rather than the team that plays there, I can get that and I fully support that view.

I do though understand the new fervor of LA fans with the possibility of their team coming home. I just urge any LA fans to really keep in mind that this has got to be tougher on St Louis fans being that this is not 20 years ago, this is now. And no matter how you view the situation, all Rams fans deserve respect here. We all know it ain't easy being a Rams fan. We all must be masochists.

This is my own personal opinion and in no way reflects any other moderator's or site owner's view. They may or may not agree with me but we honestly don't talk about relocation much even amongst ourselves.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,001
My post does say it all, that basically says none of us have any idea what constitutes legal precedent in this case. Once again, a definitive link to someone with enough knowledge to be able to say what is fact and what is not would be helpful. I don't really remember the ins and outs of the first Rams move. Is there a ruling that established legal precedent? I can't remember anyone saying there was. Again, a link to the definitive ruling would be helpful.
Exactly
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,892
Name
Stu
My post does say it all, that basically says none of us have any idea what constitutes legal precedent in this case. Once again, a definitive link to someone with enough knowledge to be able to say what is fact and what is not would be helpful. I don't really remember the ins and outs of the first Rams move. Is there a ruling that established legal precedent? I can't remember anyone saying there was. Again, a link to the definitive ruling would be helpful.
Anyone find the irony in saying a post says it all when it essentially says nothing? Not aiming any kind of jab at you Blue4 - just that we have 192 pages in this thread and probably the most accurate post is one that says we don't really know. We don't know how the previous moves affect the current potential situation. We don't know how previous suits brought against and by the NFL would affect anything current as we also don't know that anyone is moving anywhere nor do we really know anyone WANTS to move anywhere. We don't know what has been discussed between any of the parties involved. In reality - we are just a bunch of mushrooms.

I need to find or create an avatar of a mushroom cap with horns.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And who "stated" that? Certainly not the league...they wouldn't admit such a thing, and that isn't the holding of any court....so that is only someones opinion. While I agree that there is precedent it isn't in the form of a brightline ruling stating absolutely, in fact the case law states that such cases are handled on a case by case basis...so there isn't "too much" prior precedent. Now if you want to say it is unlikey they take it that far, or that it is unlikey they win that is reasonable assertion (and I agree with both of those). But until the case occurs no one can say who absolutely wins it is all opinion.

My belief is if it went to court on anti-trust issues it is between 25%-95% that he wins depending on the exact circumstances (wide margin due to so many different scenarios, not the 25% scenario is one I can't see him even fighting....)

They had other things added into the ByLaws - which has been covered I believe by both Jim thomas and Shane Gray. Teams moving without approval can lose their share of the Market revenue and merchandising.

for Jim Thomas - http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.

“Now some owners may assess the costs and benefits and say I’m willing to do that, I can bear the financial burden,” Trask said. “And if I have to have a fight with the league, I’ll have a fight with the league. I’m going to do it anyway.

“But I think an owner will have to think long and hard about so doing.”


Back in 1995, The Commissioner told Seahawks owner that he would be fined $500k a day until the team moved back.

Behring's plan was halted when the NFL threatened to fine him $500,000 a day until he returned the Seahawks to Seattle, and after King County had filed lawsuits against hi

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

As far as Anti-trust goes - Kroenke would most likely win on that basis if he went to court.
  1. The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
But would it be worth the battle? They don't want to piss off Congress, whom has already threatened the NFL about their anti-trust exemptions when it came to the blackouts... They are literally already looking at them.


going to be an interesting road - I'd sure like to see how they new ByLaws would hold up in court (it would be naive to think the NFL didn't tweak their contracts and bylaws).

One thing I am noticing though is that Commissioner can probably fine whatever they want and just call it a "fine" or an exorbitant relocation fee
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
My post does say it all, that basically says none of us have any idea what constitutes legal precedent in this case. Once again, a definitive link to someone with enough knowledge to be able to say what is fact and what is not would be helpful. I don't really remember the ins and outs of the first Rams move. Is there a ruling that established legal precedent? I can't remember anyone saying there was. Again, a link to the definitive ruling would be helpful.

I read an article after they voted yes where the commissioner at the time said it was to keep the peace. They originally voted no, she threatened a lawsuit, threw in like 30 million (well rather Kroenke did) and the NFL voted yes.

I don't know if it was the NFL being afraid to lose, the NFL just not wanting to get into the fight, or the money. They originally voted no though because they didn't think St Louis was a good market. I believe the city has demonstrated that is false though.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4


Anyone find the irony in saying a post says it all when it essentially says nothing? Not aiming any kind of jab at you Blue4 - just that we have 192 pages in this thread and probably the most accurate post is one that says we don't really know. We don't know how the previous moves affect the current potential situation. We don't know how previous suits brought against and by the NFL would affect anything current as we also don't know that anyone is moving anywhere nor do we really know anyone WANTS to move anywhere. We don't know what has been discussed between any of the parties involved. In reality - we are just a bunch of mushrooms.

I need to find or create an avatar of a mushroom cap with horns.

I'm still trying to figure out how dieterbrock and I apparently disagreed on something we evidently agreed on. Which is apparently that we don't know enough to actually disagree in the first place:confused:
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Should really remove this. We don't need posts from BBTLAR posts here. Or Keep the Rams in St. Louis crap. It's just a bunch of hate between those two groups.

Agreed, although the next image did catch my eye, it was a screenshot of this tweet:



The hell is that about? Typically Vincent has been pretty straight on this, not just making shit up. I cannot imagine that Kroenke saw the fan support there and decided "Well, now I just gotta move them!"

Then he tweeted this:



Who among the Rams organization said that? As far as I know, pretty much everyone has come into the organization after the move. And Kroenke helped that move. So he wants to right a wrong that he helped? Makes no sense.


Both tweets seemed strange, I know he was at the meetings, and has more information.... But still..
 

RAMbler

UDFA
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
75
I don't believe he's using LA as leverage either, but I do believe he is playing both sides of the fence which is why, imo, the guy is saying absolutely nothing. The problem with some of you pro LA folks is that you are only willing to see the LA side of things and just simply choose to ignore the fact that there is a good possibility that the Rams will not be in LA. In fact, to many of you it's a forgone conclusion that they will be there. As a pro Stl person, I am open to all of the possibilities and I believe this thing can go either way. I will say that the Stl stadium financing will get done, so then the question is what will the NFL do about that? Many of you guys seriously underestimate how good Dave Peacock is at what he does and the relationships he has with the important people in the NFL. Again, I'm not sure what will happen but one thing I know is that a lot of the pro LA folks are gonna be on suicide watch if this team stays in St. Louis because they have closed their minds to the possibility of the team not relocating at all.

LOL!!! Do you even read the post's your are responding to? You want to tell us "LA folks" what our "problem" is because you say we can only see one side. Even though I just told you I'M NOT 100%, AND that's it's "IMO" base on what I see & read. Then you turn around and say you are Pro St Louis, and that the financing "WILL" get done. Is that FACT, or your opinion based on your hopes?

So let me get this straight. Because I am Pro LA, I will only see one side & when I give an obvious & 'stated' OPINION.... I'm trying to peddle my opinions as "facts"? But because you're Pro St. Louis, and give your pro St Louis OPINIONS you're "open to all possibilities"??

LOL.... Freakin' priceless.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Agreed, although the next image did catch my eye, it was a screenshot of this tweet:



The hell is that about? Typically Vincent has been pretty straight on this, not just making crap up. I cannot imagine that Kroenke saw the fan support there and decided "Well, now I just gotta move them!"

Then he tweeted this:



Who among the Rams organization said that? As far as I know, pretty much everyone has come into the organization after the move.


Both tweets seemed strange, I know he was at the meetings, and has more information.... But still..


He might have gotten a word in with Kroenke and heard him say that he was happy to see the LA fan support in SD. Of course, will all news these days, creative liberties are taken to put a spin on the truth. Jim Thomas is probably the only person that's been even keeled on this, IMO. And then they traded Sam, and JT lost his marbles.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
They had other things added into the ByLaws - which has been covered I believe by both Jim thomas and Shane Gray. Teams moving without approval can lose their share of the Market revenue and merchandising.

for Jim Thomas - http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html




Back in 1995, The Commissioner told Seahawks owner that he would be fined $500k a day until the team moved back.



http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

As far as Anti-trust goes - Kroenke would most likely win on that basis if he went to court.

But would it be worth the battle? They don't want to pee pee off Congress, whom has already threatened the NFL about their anti-trust exemptions when it came to the blackouts... They are literally already looking at them.


going to be an interesting road - I'd sure like to see how they new ByLaws would hold up in court (it would be naive to think the NFL didn't tweak their contracts and bylaws).

One thing I am noticing though is that Commissioner can probably fine whatever they want and just call it a "fine" or an exorbitant relocation fee


Fully agree that any lawsuit is seriously unlikely (both sides have too much to lose)...really think this gets settled without litigation (at least among the nfl and teams). If it goes to court I see only one long shot scenario where Kroenke would NOT be favored...almost any other scenario i think his odds are 65% or greater up to 95% in the most extreme scenario (which I think would never go to litigation anyway...that and we were always taught never assume an outcome on "judgement" calls in court).
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Fully agree that any lawsuit is seriously unlikely (both sides have too much to lose)...really think this gets settled without litigation (at least among the nfl and teams). If it goes to court I see only one long shot scenario where Kroenke would NOT be favored...almost any other scenario i think his odds are 65% or greater up to 95% in the most extreme scenario (which I think would never go to litigation anyway...that and we were always taught never assume an outcome on "judgement" calls in court).

worst case scenario isn't who wins in court - it's when Congress takes away their exemptions... "don't wanna wave a red flag at the bull (congress)"

They already have their attention for Domestic Violence and Blackouts, with both times Congress mentioning their anti-trust exemptions (probably because this is congress's best leverage)
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
I'm still trying to figure out how dieterbrock and I apparently disagreed on something we evidently agreed on. Which is apparently that we don't know enough to actually disagree in the first place:confused:


Dude it happens , we get caught up in minutia and think we aren't being heard. I admit it the one thing I generally jump in on is "Absolutes", right now there aren't any so I get irked when things are stated that way...but I am one of those that says 99% is still only a chance :)...heck i have rolled the "0" "0" (lets see if anyone here gets that reference..lol). So we go round and round about if a lawsuit is 100% v 95%....

But at least we are all keeping it civil :) (thanks Mods!)
 

Big Willie

Starter
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
763
My solution to this whole mess? Keep the Rams name and players in St Louis after we build them yet another stadium. Have the Raiders and Rams owners swap franchises and move the Raiders to LA. All front office personnel goes with their owners (so SK can keep Snisher). The Chargers can go to LA too. Move the Chargers to the NFC West, move the Rams to the AFC West. Kronke builds his Taj Mahal and makes his billions, and all teams get new stadiums. As a concession by the NFL, SK gets to keep his cross market ownership of the Denver teams.

Problem solved. (I don't want the raiders management, but as a concession, I would take them.)
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Woah Jerry slow down cowboy they getting the permits.
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/27/chargers-los-angeles-stadium-nfl-meetings/
NFL owners jump aboard L.A. fast track

Jerry Jones freely acknowledges that he was the one who guaranteed after the Rams and Raiders departed Los Angeles in 1995 that there would be a team back in L.A. within five years.

“I’m glad I didn’t bet the Cowboys on that,” Jones, the Dallas Cowboys’ loquacious and bombastic owner, said with a laugh as he sipped a cup of coffee Wednesday morning in the lobby of the swanky Arizona Biltmore.

Such a history of failed prognostication when it comes to the NFL’s lost market didn’t stop Jones from confidently making another bold assertion.

“This is different,” he said. “What has changed is you have three teams that can move ... One is ready to push dirt in Los Angeles. Heck, they might even be pushing dirt.”

Jones paused, made direct eye contact and then said, “That stadium is going to get built. I know that. I don’t know about any others, but that stadium will be built.”

He was speaking of the Inglewood project being advanced by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

If true, what that means for the Chargers and their stadium proposal in Carson may not be as consequential as it is to San Diego and its efforts to keep the Chargers.

Even as the NFL seems inclined to have just one stadium and no more than two teams in Southern California, there remain any number of combinations of outcomes, including a burgeoning sentiment that two teams will end up playing in Inglewood.

Jones’ certainty about that project was as strong as any opinion offered this past week as NFL owners gathered in Phoenix for their annual spring meeting. But there is an undeniable momentum in the direction of L.A. that has not been present before.

“It’s more realistic,” Giants president John Mara said on Wednesday before departing the meetings.

For three days, the dominant topic was the possible/probable/imminent relocation of one or more of the three franchises dissatisfied with their current stadium situations. It began Monday with an update to owners from league staff on progress in Inglewood and Carson. The owners also were briefed on the state of stadium efforts in San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland.

“I heard a lot today that moved the needle for L.A.,” Giants chairman Steve Tisch said Monday.

It was also revealed the league is preparing for the possibility of making a decision about Los Angeles before the end of the year, considering a possible vote on relocation as early as the fall. The present window for a team to declare its intentions to relocate is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15.

“We also have a sense that is a little late,” said Eric Grubman, the NFL’s point man on both relocation and retention of franchises. “... We have told the home markets they ought not depend on that January 1 date. They ought to go faster than that … If we have really solid proposals, we may feel the right thing to do is make that decision earlier, so we know where we stand.”

While the requisite line is that the Chargers, Rams and Raiders continue to try to work out something in their current markets, the underlying reality seems to be that the league and its owners will ultimately be inclined to back the teams in whatever direction they decide to go.

That support seems particularly strong for Chargers owner Dean Spanos, long considered a league loyalist who goes along with the greater good.

“I think Dean is one of the top handful of owners in the NFL,” Jones said. “No one has worked harder or more passionately (toward) the best interests of the NFL. Like all of us, his first responsibility should be the Chargers.”

Several owners indicated their compassion for the plight Spanos has presented them regarding his 14-year effort to get a new stadium in San Diego.

As soon as he was finished registering the obligatory pronouncement that Spanos is working hard in San Diego, Mara said, “But he has to protect himself. We’d all be supportive if nothing is able to get worked out (in San Diego).”

That’s the thing to remember. It doesn’t matter if all of San Diego believes the city and county proposed an acceptable stadium financing plan in Mission Valley come the end of May. If the Chargers don’t think so, there is a good chance the NFL and Spanos’ fellow owners won’t think so either – unless the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group, and city and county leaders can somehow convince them otherwise.

A first step toward that end could come next month in a pair of meetings between CSAG and Grubman. He has been to St. Louis four or five times in the past year, to Oakland three to four times in the past year-plus. He will make his first visit to San Diego on April 14. Until then, he is reserving final judgment but appears predisposed to believe the team knows best.

“I don’t go there until I’ve gone there,” Grubman, who will speak with the task force via phone on April 7 and be in San Diego a week later, said in response to a question about his opinion on the team’s preference for a downtown stadium versus CSAG’s Mission Valley proposal. “I don’t think it’s right for me to take people’s comments out of context or take someone else’s point of view. I like to go meet with people and tell them what I think can be done and ask them what they think can get done and then come up with my own sense of what’s happening.

"The only advice I would give to the people in San Diego is that it’s important for a team to be enthusiastic about a project. If they’re not, maybe you still have something to work on … I think you’ve got to listen to a team that knows its market and knows it preferences.”

Grubman expects there to be a completed L.A. market analysis in the next couple weeks and an analysis of the three home markets in question be done before the owners next gather at the end of May. Those meetings are the week after CSAG is expected to have presented its financing proposal.

Grubman said the current “sense of the owners (is) to finance one stadium and have it be two-team capable” in Los Angeles. There was also the contention by some this week that, at least for the foreseeable future, the league will not stuff three teams into Southern California, which would indicate the Chargers will either be in L..A. or that just one other team will move there.

What we do seem safe in being confident of is that there is a relocation coming.

“Since we left L.A., we never had a meeting like this,” Jones said. “The league needs to be in Los Angeles … This is a major event.”
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Too much enthusiasm for this project not to get done. It's funny how the members of this board think poorly of Spanos yet the league views him as a loyalist good guy. I think the deal to watch now is Oakland's. At least from a pro - NFL StL perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.