New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Legatron4]

For the record everyone. Stan just went ROUGE.
View attachment 6017

Man, don't do that to me. I read it and thought the worst until I saw the picture.

 

[RamFan503]

Man, don't do that to me. I read it and thought the worst until I saw the picture.

Sorry man. Just trying to use a little humor to get people to stop using that term. The term is ROGUE. Rouge is french for red or a red make-up. It would be a little weird but I'm not concerned with Stan going rouge. Different strokes I suppose.

 

[ChrisW]

View: https://twitter.com/andybankertv/status/589229262210666496

Same construction managers that were in charge of Busch III.

Read back a couple of pages and didn't see this posted. I'll delete the post if I missed someone posting it first.

 

[iced]

Actually it's not and you already know the courts have ruled them as independent businesses operating in a league.

No - This isn't accurate at all - they are collectively acting as one company and not 32 individual businesses. That is the point of the anti-trust exemptions. This is why they share the TV Revenue. The exemptions allow them to negotiate as 1 entity and set it at one price, instead of competing with each other as 32 businesses. That is the point of the exemptions.

If they weren't and Stan was told he couldn't move, Kroenke's litigational option wouldn't be to sue based on the Restraint of free trade in the sherman act (as so many people speculate about, which I think is unlikely but not doubtful too happen).

 

[blue4]

Someone posted that here? I missed it. Can you tell me where it is?

Page 240 post 4789. There's been several posts in that same vein since with the 50 years is better than 20 theme. My intention in my responses to any of these type posts isn't to challenge any particular member, or to deny the existence of Rams fans in LA. They're entitled to their opinion. I'm simply expressing mine I find that type of notion to be silly.

 

[RamFan503]

No - This isn't accurate at all - they are collectively acting as one company and not 32 individual businesses. That is the point of the anti-trust exemptions. This is why they share the TV Revenue. The exemptions allow them to negotiate as 1 entity and set it at one price, instead of competing with each other as 32 businesses. That is the point of the exemptions.

If they weren't and Stan was told he couldn't move, Kroenke's litigational option wouldn't be to sue based on the Restraint of free trade in the sherman act (as so many people speculate about, which I think is unlikely but not doubtful too happen).

I can't figure out how you would interpret it that way. Seems pretty well cut and dry what the Supreme Court ruled.

The Supreme Court rejected the National Football League's request for broad antitrust law protection Monday, saying that it must be considered 32 separate teams -- not one big business -- when selling branded items like jerseys and caps.
"Although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned," said the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a unanimous court.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

"Each of the [32] teams is a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.

But the decision is not a total defeat for the NFL either. Stevens said the owners had valid reasons for cooperating on many fronts to assure the success of the league.

"The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production of and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions," Stevens wrote.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/business/la-fi-court-nfl-20100525

 

[iced]

I can't figure out how you would interpret it that way. Seems pretty well cut and dry what the Supreme Court ruled.

Its how my father, a Lawyer and Professor in Business Corporate Law (just one of his areas), explained it to me. And if you look at the Sherman anti-trust acts, you'll see it in the language.

Edit - I see you're getting it confused. It's not a broad exemption,it's certain exemptions. Look at what you posted "For merchandise"

Look at the Blackouts - even though they're written into their contract that all 32 teams share, the gov't couldn't tell them to outright stop. So what was there next move? threaten their anti-trust exemptions, and bam - instantly black outs gone. This is Important to think about for the future when it comes to litigating between owners because they already have Congress's attention, and public cities/markets could be the ones getting screwed. One reason why the NFL has to handle this with kid gloves

 

[RamFan503]

The Rams originated in Cleveland but Called LA home for 50 years. That's way longer in LA than in Cleveland. If 50 years in one place isn't home, I don't know what else is.

Sorry but this doesn't say anything about 50 years trumping 20 or anything of the sort IMO. There is a big difference between someone pointing out that LA has a large Rams fan base due to them playing there for 50 years and them discounting the 20 years they have been playing in St Louis. If they were making the claim that the 50 years "trumps" the 20, I feel they would be disrespecting 20 years spent in St Louis but I don't think that was the goal.

And in reality, the Cleveland argument is pretty laughable. The Rams originated in Cleveland. That much is true. But there are only 6 or 7 teams from that era playing in their original cities. Cleveland is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the Rams. I'm thinking there isn't a single Rams fan in Cleveland making the argument that they should come home.

 

[RamFan503]

Its how my father, a Lawyer and Professor in Business Corporate Law (just one of his areas), explained it to me. And if you look at the Sherman anti-trust acts, you'll see it in the language.

Edit - I see you're getting it confused. It's not a broad exemption,it's certain exemptions. Look at what you posted "For merchandise"

Look at the Blackouts - even though they're written into their contract that all 32 teams share, the gov't couldn't tell them to outright stop. So what was there next move? threaten their anti-trust exemptions, and bam - instantly black outs gone. This is Important to think about for the future when it comes to litigating between ownes because they already have Congress's attention, and public cities/markets could be the ones getting screwed. One reason why the NFL has to handle this with kid gloves

First of all, I don't recall your father's opinion on the teams being separate businesses and how it would pertain to this issue. I am not a lawyer nor law professor but I was a political science/pre-law major - gives me just enough knowledge to make me dangerous - eh?

If the Supreme court is verbatim saying that the 32 teams are separate businesses and then goes on to say that it makes sense for them to get together on decisions common to their interests, they are specifically saying that they are separate businesses. Show me the wording in the Sherman laws that apply. I don't see it at all in regards to this. I also don't see the specific exemption that would apply in any way. Could you name it specifically?

The NFL is enjoying specific anti-trust exemptions based on their non-profit standing and the fact that they are entering into contracts with other companies as a group, league, or co-op if you will. I never said they had a broad exemption. But they in no way are bound by the fact that they are members of the NFL to open their books and/or operate their individual businesses as directed by the NFL. The NFL still has a leg to stand on with certain requirements in keeping with the NFL brand but each team is an independent business.

The court opined that there are pretty obvious circumstances where the teams must cooperate in the interest of a successful and profitable league but in no way suggested that teams were compelled to do so. Otherwise, Jeruh would be compelled as well. What the court is saying is that trying to sue the league on anti-trust grounds because they decided to enter into a single contract with Reebock, doesn't hold water. The league is free to act in its own self interest as a group making collective decisions that benefit the shield.

The whole waving a red cape in front of Congress over the anti-trust issues is a totally different subject.

 

[iced]

First of all, I don't recall your father's opinion on the teams being separate businesses and how it would pertain to this issue. I am not a lawyer nor law professor but I was a political science/pre-law major - gives me just enough knowledge to make me dangerous - eh?

If the Supreme court is verbatim saying that the 32 teams are separate businesses and then goes on to say that it makes sense for them to get together on decisions common to their interests, they are specifically saying that they are separate businesses. Show me the wording in the Sherman laws that apply. I don't see it at all in regards to this. I also don't see the specific exemption that would apply in any way. Could you name it specifically?

I have shared his opinion in the past - its somewhere in this thread.

It's not a Broad exemption; they have particular exemptions, and the reason I keep bringing it up is because one of their biggest revenues comes from their TV marketing deals - which under their exemptions, they act as one. It also has to do with competitors, markets, and how/where you operate your business.

Merchandising is not in the same realm of what discussing

The NFL is enjoying specific anti-trust exemptions based on their non-profit standing and the fact that they are entering into contracts with other companies as a group, league, or co-op if you will. I never said they had a broad exemption. But they in no way are bound by the fact that they are members of the NFL to open their books and/or operate their individual businesses as directed by the NFL. The NFL still has a leg to stand on with certain requirements in keeping with the NFL brand but each team is an independent business.

I am not saying they're bound to show them because of that - I am saying that information is coming out regardless in the market studies. All the teams and LA are having one done.

The court opined that there are pretty obvious circumstances where the teams must cooperate in the interest of a successful and profitable league but in no way suggested that teams were compelled to do so. Otherwise, Jeruh would be compelled as well. What the court is saying is that trying to sue the league on anti-trust grounds because they decided to enter into a single contract with Reebock, doesn't hold water. The league is free to act in its own self interest as a group making collective decisions that benefit the shield.

The whole waving a red cape in front of Congress over the anti-trust issues is a totally different subject.

But its the most important when people want to theorize litigation. could win the battle but could lose the war .

Jerruh doesn't hold much water for me - he hasn't done well in litigation against the other owners lately so his opinion means jack shit to me... the older he gets the more senile he appears lol

Merchandising and operating your business in a different market is comparing apples to oranges - not even remotely the same.

 

[blue4]

Sorry but this doesn't say anything about 50 years trumping 20 or anything of the sort IMO. There is a big difference between someone pointing out that LA has a large Rams fan base due to them playing there for 50 years and them discounting the 20 years they have been playing in St Louis. If they were making the claim that the 50 years "trumps" the 20, I feel they would be disrespecting 20 years spent in St Louis but I don't think that was the goal.

And in reality, the Cleveland argument is pretty laughable. The Rams originated in Cleveland. That much is true. But there are only 6 or 7 teams from that era playing in their original cities. Cleveland is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the Rams. I'm thinking there isn't a single Rams fan in Cleveland making the argument that they should come home.

Like I said before in my earlier posts, it's more than one post. The one you quoted was simply the first one I found. The post before that one talks about how the team should move cities before any division realignment because the Rams were in the West for 48 years in LA. You don't think that may cause a STL Rams fan to blink a bit? Combine that with a few more references to 50 years and so on (remember the post on how the Rams coming back to LA will "RESTORE" their proud history. As if it was lost because of location) and you get the reason for my posts.

 

[RamFan503]

Merchandising and operating your business in a different market is comparing apples to oranges - not even remotely the same.

Exactly. It is perfectly logical for the league to agree as 32 different businesses to enter into an agreement and I don't think that has anything to do with their specific exemptions. I was a member of ALCA when I was in landscaping and we negotiated a media campaign to encourage people to invest money in their yard. We collectively agreed to put money into one contract as it was determined to be in our collective interest. The part about operating your business in a different market hasn't been tested since the NFL lost on that front and decided not to go to court on another.

Regardless, the teams - with the exception of GB - are independent businesses. As such, the NFL cannot require them to divulge anything a team considers to be private information. Specifically mentioned when the Supreme Court ruled that the league consisted of 32 separate businesses, was that each team could have different methods for marketing their team in order to generate better ticket sales, corporate interest, and the like. They could hire and pay employees and even non-employees how they see fit without being compelled to provide this information to the NFL in the form of opening their books or being compelled to operate their business according to league mandates.

The league wanted broader exemptions in order to have more control over its member teams but the Supreme Court denied them.

 

[dbrooks25]

Like I said before in my earlier posts, it's more than one post. The one you quoted was simply the first one I found. The post before that one talks about how the team should move cities before any division realignment because the Rams were in the West for 48 years in LA. You don't think that may cause a STL Rams fan to blink a bit? Combine that with a few more references to 50 years and so on (remember the post on how the Rams coming back to LA will "RESTORE" their proud history. As if it was lost because of location) and you get the reason for my posts.

You're not going crazy, blue. I as well remember reading a post or two that insinuated that 50 years trumped the 20 in Stl. There are so many pages to this thread it would be hard to track them down.

 

[Loyal]

I think this thread is important, but I am glad it is confined to here.

 

[RamFan503]

You're not going crazy, blue. I as well remember reading a post or two that insinuated that 50 years trumped the 20 in Stl. There are so many pages to this thread it would be hard to track them down.

Yeah - I certainly can't say it didn't happen. As you said, there are WAY too many posts to really try to find them all and I know I sometimes am gone for a day or two and have to skim the thread when I get back. I'll look for them as I think making that claim kind of discounts the value of the St Louis fan base.

I remember someone making the not well thought out comment to the effect of if the Rams leave for LA, the only thing the NFL loses is the St Louis fan base. While I don't really think he intended to say that losing that fan base was no big deal, there was just no way to read that as a St Louis fan without feeling completely dissed. It was a pretty insensitive comment.

I would encourage everyone though to not try to read between the lines. Simply ask the poster what he meant if you see something like that. If he responds by being further offensive, he'll be showing his colors and will no doubt be dealt with. Respect always has to be a two way street.

 

[RamFan503]

I think this thread is important, but I am glad it is confined to here.

Yeah - you and me both. And believe me. It was a unanimous decision to only allow the one thread for a reason.

 

[iced]

Exactly. It is perfectly logical for the league to agree as 32 different businesses to enter into an agreement and I don't think that has anything to do with their specific exemptions. I was a member of ALCA when I was in landscaping and we negotiated a media campaign to encourage people to invest money in their yard. We collectively agreed to put money into one contract as it was determined to be in our collective interest. The part about operating your business in a different market hasn't been tested since the NFL lost on that front and decided not to go to court on another.

And is what we're talking about - NOT merchandising agreements. Again, perfect example is the blackouts. NFL acts as one individual company in that regard,not 32.

You cannot apply the merchandising judgments against relocation or where you operate your business. It doesn't apply at all

Regardless, the teams - with the exception of GB - are independent businesses. As such, the NFL cannot require them to divulge anything a team considers to be private information. Specifically mentioned when the Supreme Court ruled that the league consisted of 32 separate businesses, was that each team could have different methods for marketing their team in order to generate better ticket sales, corporate interest, and the like. They could hire and pay employees and even non-employees how they see fit without being compelled to provide this information to the NFL in the form of opening their books or being compelled to operate their business according to league mandates.

I really don't understand why you keep repeating this. That information is coming out irregardless when the NFL does a Market Study on each team, and I've never argued whether or not it is mandated by the NFL to release it. You seem to be stuck on the merchandising level - when I'm talking on a much,much bigger level that applies to relocation and markets, not merchandising. Like I said before, apples to oranges.

 

[RamFan503]

And is what we're talking about - NOT merchandising agreements. Again, perfect example is the blackouts. NFL acts as one individual company in that regard,not 32.

You cannot apply the merchandising judgments against relocation or where you operate your business. It doesn't apply at all

Actually, it does and is the reason the NFL backed away from Georgia and Shaw when they threatened suit in the 90s.

The blackout rule was suspended because most owners didn't like it. They were buying up tickets for their own games to prevent a blackout. Can you name the outside interest or gov't entity, senator, representative, etc. that had anything to do with the NFL suspending their blackout policy? This is truly apples and oranges as the FCC was the one implementing the blackout rule. The FCC lifted the rule but not due to anything having to do with anti-trust. BTW - it is still in the language of the NFL contract and is simply being suspended by the league.

The NFL acts as a league - not an individual company. The exemption it receives has more to do with its tax exempt status than some combined interest it incorporates to enter into agreements. The league is not unlike many other organizations in that respect and yes, merchandising IS an example of that. If a team owner wanted to opt out of any of the league wide contracts, they could do so. The league could take appropriate action to withhold what it feels are benefits that team enjoys from whatever it is that the league has entered into as a group - such as with holding TV revenues if an owner decides not to be part of their television agreements. Thus it would not be in most owners best interest to negotiate TV deals on their own even in the best markets.

The owners are not stupid. They know the best way to maintain a viable NFL is to try to level the playing field as much as possible. In that respect, they make more money by doing so. They enter into agreements together that could put them in violation of the anti-trust laws (part of the exemption) but each owner would be free to opt out if they so choose knowing they will no longer have the benefit of the greater agreement.

I really don't understand why you keep repeating this. That information is coming out irregardless when the NFL does a Market Study on each team, and I've never argued whether or not it is mandated by the NFL to release it. You seem to be stuck on the merchandising level - when I'm talking on a much,much bigger level that applies to relocation and markets, not merchandising. Like I said before, apples to oranges.

How is the NFL going to determine this without Spanos releasing the information? Are they going to ask people in LA to produce receipts for game tickets they purchased? Maybe do a poll of potential fans in LA that say they would buy or have bought tickets to a Chargers game in San Diego? The only way the NFL is going to factually assess that is if Spanos gives him the information he claims to have. That is my only point in that regard. So far, the only thing I have heard on that happening is Fabiani pretty much laughing off the notion in an interview. It made me doubt Spanos assertion all the more and doubt Spanos will be providing proof anytime soon. And why this is germane is that the NFL cannot require him to give them this info.

I'm not stuck on the merchandise level - just that it was the ONLY case that really tested the greater question of if the teams are independent businesses. The ruling was that they are and even further the court denied the NFL's move to establish even greater control and exemptions through the same case.

I think you are making a leap to suggest somehow it only applies to merchandising. It doesn't. The decision also addressed the ability of the NFL to enter into agreements as a unit of independent businesses. The courts may have to decide if that extends to relocation and markets - thus far, the only tests of that have not faired well for the NFL.

I would agree that the NFL has a bit of a sticky situation with its exemptions and St Louis but I would suggest that it is more about the fact that tax dollars went to the building of that stadium and if the NFL is seen as fostering a move to another market, Congressmen will look a bit harshly on that kind of maneuver. If they piss off the wrong person(s) I could see them going after their exemptions.

 

[iced]

Actually, it does and is the reason the NFL backed away from Georgia and Shaw when they threatened suit in the 90s.

The blackout rule was suspended because most owners didn't like it. They were buying up tickets for their own games to prevent a blackout. Can you name the outside interest or gov't entity, senator, representative, etc. that had anything to do with the NFL suspending their blackout policy? This is truly apples and oranges as the FCC was the one implementing the blackout rule. The FCC lifted the rule but not due to anything having to do with anti-trust. BTW - it is still in the language of the NFL contract and is simply being suspended by the league.

yep, and its not the first time i've posted this

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

some others one i found online

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2558414

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-nfl-taxes-congress-idUSKBN0M52DQ20150309

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/12/05/Media/Blackouts.aspx

Biggest point: you can see the red cape and bull analogy a little more easily now. It's not a coincidence that the NFL just decided to ditch the blackout rule, nor was it "Becuase they didn't like it." They tried to keep it (And because it was in their contracts they could), hence the escalation of threat from congress


I'm not gonna keep going back and forth on this - i feel like you're arguing about one entity of the organization (merchandising) and trying to apply it a one size fits all regarding tv revenue and where you can operate your business. I gave you my thoughts and my old mans opinion - and i'm not wavering from that.

Cheers

 

[RamFan503]

yep, and its not the first time i've posted this

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

some others one i found online

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2558414

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-nfl-taxes-congress-idUSKBN0M52DQ20150309

Biggest point: you can see the red cape and bull analogy a little more easily now


I'm not gonna keep going back and forth on this - i feel like you're arguing about one entity of the organization (merchandising) and trying to apply it a one size fits all regarding tv revenue and where you can operate your business. I gave you my thoughts and my old mans opinion - and i'm not wavering from that.

Cheers

No man. Not a single one of those articles addresses the issue. As I said earlier, the real issue concerning the exemptions are the one that gives the NFL non-profit status. Two of those articles are almost completely about that fact. the first is just a vague reference and there is no real mention of what exemption they would go after.

There is no real reason for Congress to go after the league's exemption for their ability to negotiate as a group. If they did, they would have to apply that rule for all pro leagues. And that just isn't going to happen. And quit trying to narrow what I say to merchandising. If a ruling applies to the NFLs ability to negotiate as a single entity while still being independent businesses, it doesn't in any way limit it to just merchandising. Otherwise, do you think the NFL would have been seeking broader interpretation?