New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[BuiltRamTough]

I admitted there was a flip side in the message you were responding to. But the problem is, even if it's valid (and I'm not disagreeing it is), I don't feel it's really important. So long as Kroenke HAS an argument that the St. Louis market has failed, even if people disagree with it for valid reasons, that requirement, IMO, is checked off the list.


We'll see just how their punishments turn out. Of course, there is a difference between cheating in the game and simply doing what one wants with the team they own. The Patriots got an absolute slap on the wrist for what they did though, and probably will again.


I agree Goodell is SAYING a lot of things. But I don't think those things will hold up once they start being tested, especially if it came to the point where Stan is threatening lawsuits. There still hasn't been a good answer as to what's changed in the bylaws that would make such a lawsuit fail despite the precedent.


And I'm saying that if those owners don't have vested interest in keeping the Rams out of L.A. (and it really seems no one else but Oakland does), those votes could easily switch over.


I disagree with your biased opinion because it conflicts with my biased opinion.

But in seriousness, I don't think there is a moral component here. At the end of the day, the team belongs to Stan, and the NFL is going to have a hard time dictating that he can't run the business how (and where) he pleases.

I'm not biased. I don't trust the NFL and their bylaws. The Jaguars go play in London bc they make more money for themselves and the NFL. The bottom line is money. Just so that it's clear I live in LA and I want the Rams back but I do believe that St. Louis deserves a franchise. They built one stadium and they are helping to fund another stadium. It's clear to me that they want and deserve a team. I can't say the same for Oakland or San Diego.

 

[iced]

Yesterday, Deadspin referred to Florio as a 'half-deranged, scandal-humping football reporter.'

I thought it was a pretty perfect description.

Mike Florio is the Al Gore of sports news

 

[Boffo97]

But he doesn't have an argument that he's exhausted all options. That's my point. And is one of the relocation rules

No, he'll have an argument. You won't think it will be a good one, and you'll have a very good point there. But he will have an argument. And I think that in and of itself will "check off the box".

When was the last time the NFL let a team get away with breaking an actual rule?

I'd argue the Patriots definitely did so, and look to do so again. $750K and the loss of a nearly 2nd round pick don't even begin to compensate for what they did.

That's what I question - these penalties are known before hand...They are already written, so I'm wondering how much leverage A court would have. Specifically when talking about the merchandising and the TV Market Share (last year the TV Revenue share was around $200m).

Now for draft picks? Pretty sure no court is going to have a say in that. Goodell could do whatever he wants in that regard since its not financial, and depending on the severity of that that could cripple a team.

If the punishment was excessive, it certainly could end up in court.

After all, if you only lose one pick for cheating your way to 3 Super Bowls, losing more than one for moving the team you own would be ridiculous.

Chargers for sure have interest in keeping the Rams out. Not sure about Davis

I'm thinking the main reason owners would vote against the move is wanting to keep the L.A. market open for their own leverage (and in Spanos' case, thinking it's his even though that's not where his team is, they're just the closest team). Which, to me, is as ridiculous as if the Rams moved, and Clark Hunt started making noise about controlling the St. Louis market.

Davis and the Raiders are, AFAIK, the only other team threatening to move right now.

But there is also the history of the 90's - and the avoidance of wanting to recreate that situation. Hence the rules in the place - and the owners backing them and expecting them to be followed (particularly Art Rooney). I'm sure there won't be resistance if they feel he meets the criteria - however, if he doesn't, I'd expect there to be resistance.

Especially if its all about Dollars..if the penalty is share of the TV revenue, why wouldn't the other owners just divvy it up amongst themselves lol

I can understand them wanting to avoid the past history of the 1990's. I just don't think that's going to translate into keeping an owner who is doing all the right things in a town against his will (and in fact, I don't really feel that's best for St. Louis in the long run either.)

And I'm sure Stan will be spreading some money around for yes votes as is... but if it came to a lawsuit, the League will lose money.

I'm not biased. I don't trust the NFL and their bylaws. The Jaguars go play in London bc they make more money for themselves and the NFL. The bottom line is money. Just so that it's clear I live in LA and I want the Rams back but I do believe that St. Louis deserves a franchise. They built one stadium and they are helping to fund another stadium. It's clear to me that they want and deserve a team. I can't say the same for Oakland or San Diego.

Fair enough, I assumed you lived in St. Louis from making a statement like that. My bad. I do hope the Rams do move and freely admit that that's bias on my part, wanting the L.A. Rams of my childhood back and I feel it would be the right thing to do in correcting a past wrong. But no matter how this turns out, I have nothing against St. Louis or its fans and would hope they get another team.

 

[iced]

No, he'll have an argument. You won't think it will be a good one, and you'll have a very good point there. But he will have an argument. And I think that in and of itself will "check off the box".

Exhaust all options. Leaving with a St.Louis plan on the table or even on the horizon (since they're in regular contact with the nfl) doesn't meet that criteria.

I'd argue the Patriots definitely did so, and look to do so again. $750K and the loss of a nearly 2nd round pick don't even begin to compensate for what they did.


If the punishment was excessive, it certainly could end up in court.

After all, if you only lose one pick for cheating your way to 3 Super Bowls, losing more than one for moving the team you own would be ridiculous.

Goodell isn't buddy buddy like he is with Kraft though

I'm thinking the main reason owners would vote against the move is wanting to keep the L.A. market open for their own leverage (and in Spanos' case, thinking it's his even though that's not where his team is, they're just the closest team). Which, to me, is as ridiculous as if the Rams moved, and Clark Hunt started making noise about controlling the St. Louis market.

Davis and the Raiders are, AFAIK, the only other team threatening to move right now.

Stupid as it sounds - those are 2 of 8 votes... and if the LA panel doesn't feel Kroenke follows the criteria, i can't see him getting the votes..Again, rooney wants the rules to be followed, as well as other owners.

 

[ChrisW]

I'm thinking the main reason owners would vote against the move is wanting to keep the L.A. market open for their own leverage (and in Spanos' case, thinking it's his even though that's not where his team is, they're just the closest team). Which, to me, is as ridiculous as if the Rams moved, and Clark Hunt started making noise about controlling the St. Louis market.

Davis and the Raiders are, AFAIK, the only other team threatening to move right now.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say what no one else it. I think the owners might vote no because of the St. Louis market. If Stan files, and a vote comes while there is a stadium plan moving forward, it would create a dangerous precedent for the future. It's basically saying, "No matter what you do as a host city, we can move whenever the hell we want." The NFL doesn't like to own it's venues as a whole. They like the tax dollars. Now here we have St. Louis, where in a preliminary proposal, have already put it on the table to pay for half of a brand new stadium, in a downtown location. How many other markets can claim that?

 

[Boffo97]

Exhaust all options. Leaving with a St.Louis plan on the table or even on the horizon (since they're in regular contact with the nfl) doesn't meet that criteria.

It does if Stan argues the plan is untenable (because of the questions about the public financing) or unacceptable (because he would have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars). And yes, you'd disagree, and perhaps have a valid point. But the owners, I think, are going to tend to go along with it. If for no other reason than "You scratch my back, I scratch yours."

Goodell isn't buddy buddy like he is with Kraft though

True enough, but he's going to want to do whatever makes the NFL the most money in the long run... lawsuits aren't in that best interest.

Stupid as it sounds - those are 2 of 8 votes... and if the LA panel doesn't feel Kroenke follows the criteria, i can't see him getting the votes..Again, rooney wants the rules to be followed, as well as other owners.

Technically it'd be 9 votes, since Stan would get to move on a 24-8 vote (I think). I do think that's why Stan's going along with things right now though, because the nicest solution (at least for everyone but St. Louis) is Stan jumps through all the hoops, it gets ruled that he's met the requirements and he gets to move his team. But you're right that the LA Panel could feel there's sufficient promise to the St. Louis stadium and they *could* vote against them.

But if it comes to that, I don't see Stan just shrugging his shoulders and meekly going along with that. And the League knows it. Plus, there's been plenty saying that the League is quietly approving of what Stan's doing so far.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say what no one else it. I think the owners might vote no because of the St. Louis market. If Stan files, and a vote comes while there is a stadium plan moving forward, it would create a dangerous precedent for the future. It's basically saying, "No matter what you do as a host city, we can move whenever the hell we want." The NFL doesn't like to own it's venues as a whole. They like the tax dollars. Now here we have St. Louis, where in a preliminary proposal, have already put it on the table to pay for half of a brand new stadium, in a downtown location. How many other markets can claim that?

If it came to that, that Stan has done everything right, but the League is going to lock him into a city where he doesn't want to be, I think that's the worst possible outcome. If St. Louis is really serious about the new stadium, it would be a much better bet to try to get another team in than lock in a team that is bound and determined to leave. As mentioned, they can't force Stan to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium, but Stan can keep using 1 year extensions (which the Rams have unilateral power to do) until 2024 while they keep pushing. This next year alone, it's going to be interesting to see how the St. Louis fanbase as a whole reacts.

The owners might be afraid of a "We can move no matter what you do" precedent, but I'd think they'd be even more afraid of a precedent of "You as cities can lock us in no matter what we want to do" precedent.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I won't be surprised if Stan moves the team to LA and then 20 years later moves the team to London or anywhere else. He doesn't give a shit about St. Louis or LA. It's all about the money. As long as we watch the tube or go to the games and buy jerseys and all this other shit. The die hard Ram fan in St. Louis will still support the Rams if they moved to LA. Just like the LA fan did when they moved to St. Louis. I know that, you know that, Stan knows that and the NFL knows that.

 

[Goose]

If it came to that, that Stan has done everything right, but the League is going to lock him into a city where he doesn't want to be, I think that's the worst possible outcome. If St. Louis is really serious about the new stadium, it would be a much better bet to try to get another team in than lock in a team that is bound and determined to leave. As mentioned, they can't force Stan to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium, but Stan can keep using 1 year extensions (which the Rams have unilateral power to do) until 2024 while they keep pushing. This next year alone, it's going to be interesting to see how the St. Louis fanbase as a whole reacts.

The owners might be afraid of a "We can move no matter what you do" precedent, but I'd think they'd be even more afraid of a precedent of "You as cities can lock us in no matter what we want to do" precedent.

I don't think it will be viewed as the City locking us in but if a City is working to help increase the value of a team and the revenue of the NFL by helping build a new "state of the art"facility where other cities have been battling for a decade or more I'd expect the NFL to back that city. To show how serious STL is even the Govern of MO. has gotten deeply involved. When has that happened for any other city? If a city has a feasible stadium plan and the NFL lets a team move then other cities are going to take that as why should we even try if you can just let them move. You won't see any more public money from any city. Some things to take into consideration about a new team. The G4 program is not avaliable for teams that relocate, relocation fees are reportedly significant, and Stan is going to have to pay over a billion to build the stadium in LA. Or stay in STL help build a new stadium by only spending 250 million to get greater revenue and increase the value of your team. I am pretty sure that billionaires don't like spending their own money.

 

[Boffo97]

I won't be surprised if Stan moves the team to LA and then 20 years later moves the team to London or anywhere else. He doesn't give a crap about St. Louis or LA. It's all about the money. As long as we watch the tube or go to the games and buy jerseys and all this other crap. The die hard Ram fan in St. Louis will still support the Rams if they moved to LA. Just like the LA fan did when they moved to St. Louis. I know that, you know that, Stan knows that and the NFL knows that.

I honestly don't know if any owners are more loyal to a location than money.

I don't think it will be viewed as the City locking us in but if a City is working to help increase the value of a team and the revenue of the NFL by helping build a new "state of the art"facility where other cities have been battling for a decade or more I'd expect the NFL to back that city. To show how serious STL is even the Govern of MO. has gotten deeply involved. When has that happened for any other city? If a city has a feasible stadium plan and the NFL lets a team move then other cities are going to take that as why should we even try if you can just let them move. You won't see any more public money from any city. Some things to take into consideration about a new team. The G4 program is not avaliable for teams that relocate, relocation fees are reportedly significant, and Stan is going to have to pay over a billion to build the stadium in LA. Or stay in STL help build a new stadium by only spending 250 million to get greater revenue and increase the value of your team. I am pretty sure that billionaires don't like spending their own money.

The thing of it though is that you can make both sides happy. If St. Louis is really so far ahead of other cities in getting this done, have them be top of the list if some other franchise wants to move, while in the meantime Stan gets to do what he wants with his team. Capitalism in action.

I don't think the circumstances of the NFL allowing the Rams to move will be as dire as you make out since at this point, St. Louis has no commitment to anything above what it cost to make the drawings and what it cost to hire Peacock and Blitz.

The relocation fee issue has been discussed a lot, and many don't feel it will be as huge an issue as some hope or even not an issue at all. The fees can be reduced or waived by the NFL at will, and there is precedent for waiving them, as the fees were waived for the Raiders' return to Oakland.

I don't think Stan would have played this as he had if he felt there was more revenue in staying in St. Louis. It has been pointed out before that he has an established track record that he likes to own, not rent.

But at this point, we're pretty cyclical into "I think the owners will do this." "No, I think the owners will do that." so I'll lay off for a little while at least. No points in arguments where, at this point, neither side can be proven wrong or right.

 

[ChrisW]

Capitalism in action.

was more revenue in staying in St. Louis

Seen as a franchise deal, Stan is not free to do as he wishes with the franchise. That's why there will be a vote of all the owners to approve a move.

And I wish the thought of more revenue in LA would just be left out of this. It's stated in the bylaws that a franchise cannot move to a new market to increase it's value:

"Article 4.3 also confirms that no club has an “entitlement” to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location."
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf

This cannot, in any way, be part of the reasoning for relocation. Is it on his mind? Sure. But it cannot be used as a reason for moving.

 

[Goose]

I honestly don't know if any owners are more loyal to a location than money.

The thing of it though is that you can make both sides happy. If St. Louis is really so far ahead of other cities in getting this done, have them be top of the list if some other franchise wants to move, while in the meantime Stan gets to do what he wants with his team. Capitalism in action.

I don't think the circumstances of the NFL allowing the Rams to move will be as dire as you make out since at this point, St. Louis has no commitment to anything above what it cost to make the drawings and what it cost to hire Peacock and Blitz.

The relocation fee issue has been discussed a lot, and many don't feel it will be as huge an issue as some hope or even not an issue at all. The fees can be reduced or waived by the NFL at will, and there is precedent for waiving them, as the fees were waived for the Raiders' return to Oakland.

I don't think Stan would have played this as he had if he felt there was more revenue in staying in St. Louis. It has been pointed out before that he has an established track record that he likes to own, not rent.

But at this point, we're pretty cyclical into "I think the owners will do this." "No, I think the owners will do that." so I'll lay off for a little while at least. No points in arguments where, at this point, neither side can be proven wrong or right.

Your absolutely right the NFL can do what they want when it comes to the fees and bending the rules but I am not sure why they would just give Stan a free pass to move and not pay the other owners to do it. Especially since you will lose the STL market and you don't have a resolution for the other California teams. In your scenario you don't make everyone happy. STL is still without a team and I don't want to be the next in line; I want my team to stay here. I know everyone has suggested that they will put two teams in LA but I am not so sure they will at least not for a while. The NFL has stated it cannot fail in LA again so I think they are only going to put one team in LA and watch it very closely for some time before they'd even consider two teams. Boffo no reason to lay off on a good discussion but if the NFL thinks like my wife then I am wrong and my city is in trouble.

 

[iced]

if the NFL thinks like my wife then I am wrong and my city is in trouble.

another nominee for ROD quote HOF

 

[Klaus]

I'm not biased. I don't trust the NFL and their bylaws. The Jaguars go play in London bc they make more money for themselves and the NFL. The bottom line is money. Just so that it's clear I live in LA and I want the Rams back but I do believe that St. Louis deserves a franchise. They built one stadium and they are helping to fund another stadium. It's clear to me that they want and deserve a team. I can't say the same for Oakland or San Diego.

Agree ! Thanks for your support...

 

[TSFH Fan]

Hey guys, I allways google "Rams" to read new stuff that pops up and today i noticed this pop up... has this been there and i just never noticed it or what is it? Do they sell Rams gear there or something?

haven't looked into it yet but was just wondering what it is?

Fine, I was bored and definitely in the area . . . I couldn't find a suite 302. Platinum Enterprise Solutions is in 202 and 102 is below it. I guess 302 would be on the 3d floor, but there's no third floor.



This is the new 601 building. I used to work in the old 601 building, I relocated, then the building burned down about 10 years ago [wasn't me]. I don't remember it having 3 floors back then, but it could have.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Fine, I was bored and definitely in the area . . . I couldn't find a suite 302. Platinum Enterprise Solutions is in 202 and 102 is below it. I guess 302 would be on the 3d floor, but there's no third floor.

View attachment 5406 View attachment 5407 View attachment 5408

This is the new 601 building. I used to work in the old 601 building, I relocated, then the building burned down about 10 years ago [wasn't me]. I don't remember it having 3 floors back then, but it could have.

Hahaha your the man! thanks for checking it out, I'd give you more likes for your investigation if i could!

 

[bluecoconuts]

I wouldn't say that he assumes he has control as much as he's consulted with owners who probably agree with him...And again, overall perception.

As a co-owner in a big company, I'd be pissed if my business partners were allowed to skate around the guide lines that everyone else has to follow..

Yeah, but if you're the co-owner in a big company and a business partner was skating around guide lines you knew you didn't really need to follow, would you still be as angry? Or perhaps you don't think you can but you wait and see what happens, meaning that if you needed to skate around said rules, now you know you can? At this point it remains to be seen if any owners need to follow the guide lines, a lot seem to think they really don't, hence the thought that they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

As for owners potentially agreeing the Chargers should be able to block all potential moves to LA, I don't think that's the case, given the NFL has been pretty open about getting a team to LA for the past few years. If the Chargers can't do it, and it seems they either lack the ability or don't really want to move there, then I don't see them holding the market free for him. He either needs to shit or get off the pot.

But he doesn't have an argument that he's exhausted all options. That's my point. And is one of the relocation rules

The NFL has indicated they believe he has worked pretty hard on St Louis at this point. If they really believe it or not, they've set themselves up to claim he did just that. Obviously fans will have different opinions on the matter, but all that matters is what the NFL says. Thus far they have indicated that they satisfied with efforts by Stan thus far.

Hence the rules in the place - and the owners backing them and expecting them to be followed (particularly Art Rooney)

Art Rooney is on the committee to bring a team to LA, not sure how much help he would be. He's been working on that for a while now, back in 2012 he said he expects a team in LA within 5 years, and while he did say he needed to follow the bylaws, again it's up to the NFL to say he did. I think that just means they want him to ask them to vote. One of the "problems" that may convince owners to just say yes, is there is precedent that he can just up and move, and while the guidelines have been tightened up since the last lawsuit, it likely isn't enough. I can't see Kroenke dropping that much money, time, energy into a stadium and then just giving up if the NFL says no. I think he just goes ahead and goes anyway, maybe he waits a year and tries the next year, but if that stadium finished in 2018, and if construction starts later this year as planned, I would guess it would be, I have a hard time believing that the Rams wont be in it, unless the theory that he's building it for someone else is true (which I doubt).

Goodell isn't buddy buddy like he is with Kraft though

Kraft is on Kroenke's side though...

 

[mr.stlouis]

No, he'll have an argument. You won't think it will be a good one, and you'll have a very good point there. But he will have an argument. And I think that in and of itself will "check off the box".


I'd argue the Patriots definitely did so, and look to do so again. $750K and the loss of a nearly 2nd round pick don't even begin to compensate for what they did.


If the punishment was excessive, it certainly could end up in court.

After all, if you only lose one pick for cheating your way to 3 Super Bowls, losing more than one for moving the team you own would be ridiculous.


I'm thinking the main reason owners would vote against the move is wanting to keep the L.A. market open for their own leverage (and in Spanos' case, thinking it's his even though that's not where his team is, they're just the closest team). Which, to me, is as ridiculous as if the Rams moved, and Clark Hunt started making noise about controlling the St. Louis market.

Davis and the Raiders are, AFAIK, the only other team threatening to move right now.


I can understand them wanting to avoid the past history of the 1990's. I just don't think that's going to translate into keeping an owner who is doing all the right things in a town against his will (and in fact, I don't really feel that's best for St. Louis in the long run either.)

And I'm sure Stan will be spreading some money around for yes votes as is... but if it came to a lawsuit, the League will lose money.



Fair enough, I assumed you lived in St. Louis from making a statement like that. My bad. I do hope the Rams do move and freely admit that that's bias on my part, wanting the L.A. Rams of my childhood back and I feel it would be the right thing to do in correcting a past wrong. But no matter how this turns out, I have nothing against St. Louis or its fans and would hope they get another team.

I feel like I'm in the minority by saying STL should adamantly boycotte the NFL if the Rams move for at least 60 years. I should be dead by then...

Gordon was jamming the "they're gone" gears today. I don't know why local media would do that. And I have no idea what the hell "lame duck season" means. This isn't politics. If the Rams are moving in 2016 then that's all the more reason the fans should pack the house just to enjoy the last games.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Basically what the Chargers are saying is that they are going to block any team that wants to move to LA unless it's them lol

 

[blue4]

The NFL has indicated they believe he has worked pretty hard on St Louis at this point. If they really believe it or not, they've set themselves up to claim he did just that. Obviously fans will have different opinions on the matter, but all that matters is what the NFL says. Thus far they have indicated that they satisfied with efforts by Stan thus far.

The only thing the NFL has indicated is that they are just tickled pink by every thing everyone is doing. They've actually said nothing, and by indicating just about everything, they've really indicated nothing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The only thing the NFL has indicated is that they are just tickled pink by every thing everyone is doing. They've actually said nothing, and by indicating just about everything, they've really indicated nothing.

Yeah, that's their job though, they need to keep everyone happy to make money. If they felt that Stan wasn't doing enough yet, I think we would hear about it. Right now all we've seen about that is the commissioner saying he felt Stan was doing a good job and has been for a while.