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.

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
No I am not an insider, I don't know what is going to happen next, and I won't ever claim to have an "inside source".

Well handled, Goose. Welcome to good, old ROD. (y)

Yeah, the "inside source" claim eventually leads to mockery. Ironically, odds are that there are indeed those on the net who have inside information but are now afraid to reveal anything because of that.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,912
Name
Dennis
Stan stepped up in a big way to help bring football here twice. Once when financing to bring the expansion team here fell through and then again to help bring the Rams here. Stan felt disrespected by City officials. I have been told on several occasions that if the City had approached Stan early on and worked with him thing would be very different; some on the mayors staff felt it was more important to prove they were the smartest person in the room. The problem is sometimes you're not and here we are. I don't think Stan had a desire to leave STL until they low-balled him, then everything changed. Peacock is working hard to rebuild the bridges that have been burnt. Time will only tell if he is able to succeed.

Goose many of us appreciate this and sometimes Thomas Paine reigns supreme and this post is just good old fashioned common sense. It might be too late, but Peacock is amazing and we'll have to see how it plays out, but once again brother...Thanks!
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
I'm not even skeptical, just was curious. What would you estimate about their level of optimism? I'm about 60-40 they move, although the SD OAK deal gives me a little hope.

They are optimistic about staying and NFL City. They won't say one way or another they are optimistic about the Rams staying. I haven't had a chance to talk to any of them since the SD/Oak announcement. Just me personnel I'd say with the recent deal with the union and the other announcement that 60/40 is getting closer to 50/50 but I am trying to not to go overboard with my optimism because we are not there yet. This thing isn't even close to being over.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Landowner in Path of Proposed Stadium is Ready to Make a Deal
Kevin Killeen (@KMOXKilleen)
February 23, 2015 9:34 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX)
– Those who own land in the path of the proposed NFL stadium along the riverfront are hoping to make a deal, and waiting for someone to make an offer.

One of the landowners is predicting the deal can get done.

Attorney Mark Schulte is co-owner of the old Cotton Belt Warehouse, which sits on land that would go from the goal line to the 50-yard line.

He was asked if he’s ready to sell for a fair price.

“I’m not a greedy man, but I’m not a rich man. This is a rounding error for billionaires, OK? So, there’s enough here for us all to be fed, and to be better off for it. None of us need to be greedy,” he says.

Schulte says between the city, the railroad and Pulanski bank, there’s enough land for the stadium itself.

Beyond that, he says, it’s a question of assembling surrounding land that would be used for parking.

Schulte says so far, no group has approached the landowners to try to put together a stadium deal.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/02...-of-proposed-stadium-is-ready-to-make-a-deal/
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
Ehhhh, I wouldn't say that... While Stan can break moving bylaws and then sue for anti-trust violations if they attempted to punish or block him, those two couldn't break G4 bylaws and just take the money, it would require a vote and getting passed. Granted they could probably just vote to give them the money anyway, or change the bylaws to allow relocation as well (but the NFL may not want to set that type of precedent), but I don't think you could sue for the money if they said no.

Now if that comes up and is voted on during the owners meeting (and passed) I'd say that indicates the NFL really wants the Carson project to go through (unless it's one very elaborate bluff, which would be a bit much), likewise if they sit down all three guys and have them come up with a plan (which you have to think is likely), and then announce discussions (not as likely) that would also indicate strongly how they feel. I'm still under the impression that only Kroenke can determine where the Rams play in 2016, the Carson project and pressure from the NFL could sway him to change his mind (again, assuming it's not just one big bluff, which if that's the case it's not really working anyway), but if it doesn't and he pushes forward with a stadium, you gotta think Spanos or Davis pull out. They're not going to split LA 3 ways.
I honestly don't understand why you think Stan can do whatever he wants and the NFL will just step aside, but 2 other owners who have far more pressing stadium issues will have to play everything by the book with no favors or anything from the NFL, this is an old boys club and Spanos and Davis both have longer and I would assume more connections with the other owners. Stan does not rule the NFL there are 31 other owners too.
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
If our politicians had the same passion and drive for the City as Dave does imagine where this city would be. Politicians however are looking for a career that extend past the city and the state more times than not and won't do anything to put themselves in jeopardy.
It seemed odd that Kroenke would just go to LA and build a stadium without a word to the folks in MO! I now understand more of the why that he would do so. If you hold most of the marbles, you should be respected for it! Someone thought they had the upper hand and was handed their head on a platter by Kroenke! Power play by the man with the power!
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I honestly don't understand why you think Stan can do whatever he wants and the NFL will just step aside, but 2 other owners who have far more pressing stadium issues will have to play everything by the book with no favors or anything from the NFL, this is an old boys club and Spanos and Davis both have longer and I would assume more connections with the other owners. Stan does not rule the NFL there are 31 other owners too.

Its not that Stan is better liked and thus they will let him do more or anything like that, its that Stan has the money to do what he wants without permission, and money to sue if they try to punish him, and the league has a history of trying to avoid lawsuits.

If Davis and Spanos want to move they could do the same thing, but they can't afford to build that stadium, Kroenke can. It's a lot easier to build, move and then threaten a lawsuit if they say no, then to apply for the G4 loan, hope they decide to award it to you, despite it not being for relocation, and then build it and move. If the NFL says no to Kroenke, precedent says he can sue. I'm not so sure Davis and Spanos could successfully sue if they said no to the G4 loan.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
If the NFL says no to Kroenke, precedent says he can sue

Precedent is there, but we also have the G-4 resolution now, and other teams trying to get into the market. The NFL can reject Kroenke's move and cite San Diego and Oakland's proposal as the reason. Would it hold up in court as a legit way to hold Kroenke from the market? maybe short term, but it wouldn't work for long.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Precedent is there, but we also have the G-4 resolution now, and other teams trying to get into the market. The NFL can reject Kroenke's move and cite San Diego and Oakland's proposal as the reason. Would it hold up in court as a legit way to hold Kroenke from the market? maybe short term, but it wouldn't work for long.

I don't think it's the market that determines that a team can move, I think the anti-trust stuff is about the NFL not being able to tell a team where they can't play. In theory 5 teams could all move to Alaska, and sue saying it's their team they can move it where they want. That was my understanding at least.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
I don't think it's the market that determines that a team can move, I think the anti-trust stuff is about the NFL not being able to tell a team where they can't play. In theory 5 teams could all move to Alaska, and sue saying it's their team they can move it where they want. That was my understanding at least.

Right. but, in the past there hasn't been 3 teams trying to move into the same market. In this case you might see a different ruling. Also, we'll see if the G-4 resolution would hold up in court or not. I doubt it will, but it is in writing who controls the LA market.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,620
Name
Stu
Right. but, in the past there hasn't been 3 teams trying to move into the same market. In this case you might see a different ruling. Also, we'll see if the G-4 resolution would hold up in court or not. I doubt it will, but it is in writing who controls the LA market.
Not sure why a court would rule that the NFL has to loan money to someone who doesn't meet the loan criteria. It is not the same thing at all as telling someone where they can and cannot do business.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Not sure why a court would rule that the NFL has to loan money to someone who doesn't meet the loan criteria. It is not the same thing at all as telling someone where they can and cannot do business.

The G-4 resolution is separate from the G-4 loan. The G-4 resolution was added to the Bylaws when the Rams moved. It basically just outlines some things for the Rams moving, including: relocation fees, it states that the NFL controls the LA market, that the owners can force the rams to switch conferences its deemed necessary when a team moves to LA, and a couple other things.

Copy and paste this * 1995 Resolution G-4 * into google and it should give you a top link of the resolution.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The G-4 resolution is separate from the G-4 loan. The G-4 resolution was added to the Bylaws when the Rams moved. It basically just outlines some things for the Rams moving, including: relocation fees, it states that the NFL controls the LA market, that the owners can force the rams to switch conferences its deemed necessary when a team moves to LA, and a couple other things.

Copy and paste this * 1995 Resolution G-4 * into google and it should give you a top link of the resolution.

I'm still not sure how that changes any potential lawsuit that the Rams could go to if the NFL was to block a move. When Davis sued the NFL for the right to move, the Rams were already in Los Angeles, so the NFL could (and did) block saying that another team was there. He won because they determined that the NFL couldn't tell an owner where his team could play, and he had done it simply to increase the value of his franchise, which the NFL relocation bylaws also don't allow.

I think that the Carson issue, despite having more flaws/issues than the Inglewood stadium, could convince Kroenke not to move, but I don't think it changes his ability to sue if the NFL was to tell him no.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874

Silent Stan Kroenke’s Move Threatened by Chargers/Raiders Plan

By Randy Karraker

http://www.101sports.com/2015/02/23/silent-stan-kroenke-move-threatened-by-chargersraiders-plan/

We’ve all heard the term “life imitates art,” and in the case of the Los Angeles vs. St. Louis stadium saga, this couldn’t be more true.

Remember the 1988 film Die Hard? Hans Gruber heads to Los Angeles trying to attain untold riches, by trying to steal $600 million from the Nakatomi Corporation, holding a large group of people hostage in order to disguise his true intentions. Gruber is thwarted by the hero, John McClane, played by Bruce Willis.

Well, here in 2015, we have a man, Stan Kroenke, that wants to go to Los Angeles to make untold millions by moving the St. Louis Rams there. On January 5, he announced plans to build an 80,000 seat stadium in Inglewood, California. In real life, St. Louis football fans are the ones being held hostage, not knowing whether or not they’re going to have a team. And he looked like he would be able to execute the plan without a hitch. But now we have a real life John McClane in this situation, and his name is Mark Fabiani, the special counsel for San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos.

Last week, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders announced their plans to build their own stadium in Carson, California, becoming a fly in the ointment for Kroenke. Now, Kroenke’s planned money grab doesn’t look like as much of a lock. Metaphorically, Fabiani, the Chargers and the Raiders have used McClane’s famous line on the terrorist “Yippee-ki-yay, mother#*!@$&.”

The Chargers and Raiders very deftly kept their land purchase on the down-low, even though they had the plan to buy it during the summer.

They admitted that they set their plan in motion and designed their stadium only after Kroenke took the initiative on his own in L.A.

While Kroenke still has a tremendous plan to get to SoCal and very well might wind up there, the Raiders and Chargers will bring strong cases to the table if they go to the NFL with a desire to move. The Raiders have been trying to get a new stadium in Oakland for at least six years, and in a very public manner have voiced their desire to work with and stay in Oakland.

The Chargers are in their fifteenth year of trying to get a new stadium in San Diego, and since the Rams and Raiders left in 1995 have cultivated the market so that they claim 25% of their revenue from Orange County and Los Angeles. They have no fewer than nine stadium proposals that have been put forth between the franchise and seven different mayors in that time. Like the Raiders, the Chargers have said they’ll only move to Los Angeles as a last resort in the event they can’t get a stadium deal in their home market.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has forged ahead with his STL stadium plan despite Kroenke’s silence.

Meanwhile, Kroenke has worked through a mandatory arbitration process in St. Louis, but otherwise hasn’t personally participated in any attempt to get a new stadium in his home market. It’s been two years since the arbitration concluded, and the Rams owner not only hasn’t put forth a proposal to get a new stadium in St. Louis, but he hasn’t spoken to the Governor of the state or the Mayor of the city. A veteran developer, nobody knows how to build something with government help more than Kroenke. I feel comfortable in saying that there has NEVER been a time that he has waited for a municipality to come to him with a plan to build a shopping center with tax increment financing. When Kroenke wants to build something, he goes to a city with a plan and tells them what he wants.

The NFL relocation guidelines clearly state that “All clubs, at any time during their stadium negotiations, are free to seek the assistance of the League Office and the Stadium Committee, on either a formal or informal basis. If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations.”

After six years, the Raiders might be able to say that. After fourteen years, the Chargers might be able to. They’ve both stayed in touch with the NFL, and given their home territories a legitimate chance to make a last ditch effort to build a stadium.

And in St. Louis, Gruber…err, Kroenke…stays away and says nothing as Governor Nixon’s task force continues to forge ahead with remarkable progress on a new stadium.

There’s every chance that Kroenke, who clearly WANTS to take advantage of enhanced revenues, will arbitrarily move his franchise to L.A. despite the league having rules against that, and two distressed franchises that NEED to relocate because they can’t survive economically in their current markets. And there’s every chance that the league, led by the Chargers, will do everything IT can to prevent such a move.

Kroenke, like Hans Gruber, thought he had a clear path to all that wealth in Los Angeles. And now football’s version of John McClane, the Chargers, are the monkey in the wrench. The symbolism of their announcement says one thing to the guy trying to get the money in Los Angeles. Yippee-ki-yay, mother#*!@$&.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
I'm still not sure how that changes any potential lawsuit that the Rams could go to if the NFL was to block a move. When Davis sued the NFL for the right to move, the Rams were already in Los Angeles, so the NFL could (and did) block saying that another team was there. He won because they determined that the NFL couldn't tell an owner where his team could play, and he had done it simply to increase the value of his franchise, which the NFL relocation bylaws also don't allow.

I think that the Carson issue, despite having more flaws/issues than the Inglewood stadium, could convince Kroenke not to move, but I don't think it changes his ability to sue if the NFL was to tell him no.

AFAIK, The relocation bylaws were created after Al Davis moved to LA and that's specifically added the part in about increasing franchise value. Then the G-4 resolution was added to further tighten anyone moving into the LA market willy-nilly.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,620
Name
Stu
The G-4 resolution is separate from the G-4 loan. The G-4 resolution was added to the Bylaws when the Rams moved. It basically just outlines some things for the Rams moving, including: relocation fees, it states that the NFL controls the LA market, that the owners can force the rams to switch conferences its deemed necessary when a team moves to LA, and a couple other things.

Copy and paste this * 1995 Resolution G-4 * into google and it should give you a top link of the resolution.
Maybe so but the question I believe revolved around the G4 loan as it is part of the Chargers/Raiduhs proposed plan. The numbers I saw include that $400 million as a big part of how the plan would not require public funding.

It is interesting if you read the G-4 resolution regarding the Rams move to St Louis, it calls for league control of a second NFL team. I wonder how that affects a first NFL team move to LA. Does it mean that if one of the teams moves first, they couldn't use that resolution in an attempt to block them?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Does it mean that if one of the teams moves first, they couldn't use that resolution in an attempt to block them?

I believe so. But someone earlier in this thread said it isn't binding. So who really knows.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
I'm still not sure how that changes any potential lawsuit that the Rams could go to if the NFL was to block a move. When Davis sued the NFL for the right to move, the Rams were already in Los Angeles, so the NFL could (and did) block saying that another team was there. He won because they determined that the NFL couldn't tell an owner where his team could play, and he had done it simply to increase the value of his franchise, which the NFL relocation bylaws also don't allow.

The case though did not create a bright line rule - the court opinion basicly was that these needed to be handled on a case by case basis - and that the league had failed to prove a need to restrict here (it even went as far as to say certain omitted evidence may have swayed it). The court actually says the league can likely do it, with proper reasoning.....

You are correct that the part about financial gain was part of the court case...but the court really did not go into it.

I keep searching but can not really tell what changes were made in the bylaws due to this case (changes were made prior). It may just be that the court gave enough ideas on how to win in the future that the bylaws are considered good enough.



I believe so. But someone earlier in this thread said it isn't binding. So who really knows.

I believe it was I who said that...I was referring to the part about getting a team to LA, it expresses an interest and creates an objective (it is mere preamble....but there there is nothing in that part that is "Contractual" (who does that part bind but the NFL ?), the lower sections of the resolution are clearly a contractal (whom pays who, what the compensations are, what is given).

I would agree the "second team" part leaves a big question mark. I know that Davis lost his later lawsuit regarding control of the LA market...but it did not get appealed (that I could find), so the lower court ruling may not hold up (it would not be binding on an appeals court).
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,620
Name
Stu
I believe so. But someone earlier in this thread said it isn't binding. So who really knows.
So strange how this all adds up yet doesn't.

I think I'm just going to figure on that the Rams will stay in St Louis and that has - in the end - been Stan's plan all along. He will use everything at his disposal to get the best deal he can. I just hope that what Goose was saying about some people in the gov't pissing him off so he leaves as a FU type move doesn't come into play. I have all along thought the CVC may have soured him on even trying to negotiate with them after the low ball offer. And being that the CVC is comprised of people appointed by the city/county/Governor, Stan may have already moved on in his mind. Peacock is a wild card here.

I just don't think Stan works that hard to bring the NFL to St Louis with the mindset that what he really wants is the LA market. It just doesn't make much sense to me.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
NFL sending market surveys to St. Louis Rams fans
By David Hunn

ST. LOUIS
• The NFL is sending market surveys to 185,000 local football fans.

Brian McCarthy, the league’s vice president of communications, said emails should hit inboxes tomorrow, perhaps earlier.

The survey has two goals, McCarthy said: First, to assess the viability of a new stadium; Second, to figure out what location, seating and amenities St. Louisans would prefer.

The survey will ask recipients where they’d like a new stadium built, what amenities they’d like included, and how many and what type of seats they’d buy. Club? Suite? General admission?


Of particular import:

Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium-development duo, Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz, are helping, McCarthy said. And so are the Rams. The team provided its database of season ticket holders, he said.

McCarthy said the league conducted a similar study of the Los Angeles market in October. But that survey went out to just 2,000, according to a Los Angeles Times story then, far less than the one going out locally.

Local stadium advocates took the news as a good sign, calling it another marker met by Nixon’s task force.

McCarthy said the NFL regularly conducts surveys in markets up for new teams or new stadiums. He didn’t immediately know, however, if the league has conducted surveys in markets that didn’t go on to build new stadiums.

Should Rams fans read into the move as a sign of a stadium to come?

Do that on your own, McCarthy said. “Our role is to assess the viability of a stadium,” he continued, “and inform how a stadium would be best built in a particular market.”

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...5-9b97-78030da3a690.html#.VOujSu7N3Ac.twitter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.