New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

No... Bernie and the rest of the media don't know what Stan wants. That means zero in regards to what the actual players in this thing know. Stan doesn't subscribe to discussing plans and negotiations through the media. That much we know. I would hazard to guess that the other parties in all this have been asked to use the same MO.

And Bernie telling Stan what he should be doing?

Bernie himself is not the point. I just used the article as an example. The point IS the silence and how out of the 3 teams we are the ones who hear nothing. Davis has at least once said he's willing to kick in money. If I were an Oakland resident that would make it pretty easy to hold my elected officials accountable. There has been at least communication between Spanos and SD. The St Louis situation is going to come to some sort of vote, whether that's just in the state senate or public. Seems to me showing some interest would help that vote along if he's any desire to work here at all. So really, in regards to what I'm saying, Davis and Spanos being slum lords or whatever is irrelevant. Building Wal Marts and strip malls isn't high on my list of awesome things either. Doesn't matter here. The chargers and raiders fans have at least some inkling their teams may want to stay. If Stan gave that here, that STL stadium would be a done deal, even without a total commitment. That's just my opinion.

 

[Goose]

I think it explains quite a bit the first shovel to hit the ground will be the stadium they end up going with the NFL will be able to do nothing at that point. Still a long way to Tipperary, but it's not such a long way from home.

Den,
That assumes that Stan or another owner is going to go rogue and push forward without the 2/3 vote. The success of the NFL is predicated on 32 entities putting the success of the league above the individual team. I understand the anti-trust lawsuit but it will never get to that point. After all the mid 90's shuffling they NFL altered the bylaws that not only established the criteria for a move but the penalties for a owner/team if it goes rogue. Amy Trask indicated these were very significant. Some penalties include forfeiture of TV money, loss of draft picks, and City ineligible for NFL events like hosting a SB. If Stan says I am moving the NFL isn't going to stop him but he is going to get hit hard. Stan may be rich but the league collectively has 31 other rich owners that will fight him and I am sure they have good lawyers too. However, you are right we have a very long way to go and Carson will have their signatures for their ballot shortly.

In a perfect world no team would move and they wouldn't lost any market but if the NFL really wants a team in LA then they are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. If you move the Raiders and the Chargers while you might loses some of the market initially you ability to recover from the move is greater than moving the Rams. The distance, though no optimal, is still a relative reasonable commute for either fan base. Each team would still be the optimal game for that market to show on TV. Plus with realignment you are guaranteed to have the Rams play in at least once a year giving those fans at least something and keeping the STL market. If you move the Rams you will lose the STL market unless another team moved here but you would still have to start from scratch to cultivate the fan base and support.

 

[Thordaddy]

Womp womp womp, it's gonna be a whole new vibe and attitude! Shovels are in the dirt

Thats the kind of post that'll get this threa shut down , sort of a taunt IMO

 

[Goose]

Womp womp womp, it's gonna be a whole new vibe and attitude! Shovels are in the dirt

Nate,
While I understand the enthusiasm shovels are a long way from hitting dirt at any site right now.

 

[drasconis]

I think it explains quite a bit the first shovel to hit the ground will be the stadium they end up going with the NFL will be able to do nothing at that point. Still a long way to Tipperary, but it's not such a long way from home.

That is pretty simplistic view. While any project will have a point of no return it certainly isn't when the first shovel hits the ground (heck the number of projects I have seen die even after land is cleared or foundation dug (not poured though) is huge). It is also pretty presumptious to believe the NFL can do nothing, they can do quite a lot (how well it works is debatable - but not a certainty).

 

[Prime Time]

And thus the pendulum swings once more...

Kevin Demoff warned us that this will be a roller coaster ride from now until the finish line.

 

[Prime Time]

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/25/nfl-salary-cap-myth-los-angeles-stadium/

L.A. Calling
By Andrew Brandt

In the first NFL owners meeting I attended, in the spring of 1999, one of the top agenda items concerned a team in Los Angeles. That was 16 years ago, with L.A. never gaining traction. Now, with three current owners jockeying for position with two different stadium plans, there may be that traction.

When Rams’ owner Stan Kroenke acquired land in Inglewood, Calif., last year, he put a stake in the ground—literally and figuratively—as the frontrunner in the chase for L.A. And the inevitable response has come: City leaders in St. Louis and the governor of Missouri have stepped up their efforts to show Kroenke the money.

Now come the Chargers and Raiders who, exasperated with their out-of-date stadium circumstances, have joined forces with a stadium plan in Carson, Calif., (a site rejected by the NFL years ago). They are saying all the right things about exhausting options with their home jurisdictions and respecting the NFL relocation process, but the message is clear: like St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland need to step up. And if they don’t?

Well, the brinksmanship will ratchet up towards the potential of drastic change in the NFL landscape in 2016. Options create leverage, and the lure of L.A. gives teams leverage of another enticing option.

NFL owners have never been above forging the best deal possible for themselves. Wealthy NFL owners do not “need” their local municipalities to help finance state-of-the-art stadiums (nor did they “need” a better deal with the players in the most recent CBA). However, they negotiate favorable terms because, well, they can. Stadium economics has become one of the most important pieces of the NFL ownership profit puzzle, and L.A. is the biggest chess piece yet. Stay tuned.

 

[den-the-coach]

Den,
If you move the Rams you will lose the STL market unless another team moved here but you would still have to start from scratch to cultivate the fan base and support.

I agree Goose just wanted people to understand that IMO the first shovel of dirt will win the race. Not sure how this is going to play out, but you can't ignore the obvious. Keep in mind back in 94 Georgia Frontiere did not get the votes from the owners, but stated she was going to move anyway and to avoid arbitration the owners then voted in her favor.

 

[den-the-coach]

It is also pretty presumptious to believe the NFL can do nothing, they can do quite a lot (how well it works is debatable - but not a certainty).

From a legal standpoint they can't. That precedent has been set with previous moves (Al Davis) but I still believe the first shovel of dirt wins, but that's JMHO.

 

[blue4]

From a legal standpoint they can't. That precedent has been set with previous moves (Al Davis) but I still believe the first shovel of dirt wins, but that's JMHO.

From what I've seen earlier in this thread, that precedent is murky at best.

 

[Goose]

I agree Goose just wanted people to understand that IMO the first shovel of dirt will win the race. Not sure how this is going to play out, but you can't ignore the obvious. Keep in mind back in 94 Georgia Frontiere did not get the votes from the owners, but stated she was going to move anyway and to avoid arbitration the owners then voted in her favor.

Den,
As always being the voice of reason and logic. You and I are clearly on the same page. A couple of tweets I found interesting from yesterdays meeting.

@DailyNewsVinny
Inglewood Mayor James Butts tells me construction will begin no later than December, with or without the #Rams officially relocating #NFL

@thebenbergman
The developer of Inglewood's NFL stadium tells me construction will begin by the end of the year. Project still needs city permits.

Ben Bergman ‏@thebenbergman
Rams owner Stan Kroenke - or at least a giant cutout of his head - is celebrating here in Inglewood

While Al Davis was the driving force behind the bylaw changes Georgia may have been the straw that broke the camels back. I don't believe such move would be tolerated today.

 

[ChrisW]

This doesn't change what Grubman told St. Louis. Build the stadium and we will have the NFL, in one way or another. I have a hard time believing that a move will happen with a stadium on the table. But this is just reiterating what I've said for a while now.

 

[drasconis]

From a legal standpoint they can't. That precedent has been set with previous moves (Al Davis) but I still believe the first shovel of dirt wins, but that's JMHO.

From a legal standoint that is still up in the air....you might want to read the actual case - it set no bright line rule (in fact it specifically said it did not). Add in that the league rules have supposedly changed. Now you can believe that based upon the previous case Kroenke would win (reasonable), but there certainly are grounds for a trial, and any lawyer will tell you that if a case goes to trial the outcome is NEVER certain (they may say it is probable...but not certain).

 

[drasconis]

I agree Goose just wanted people to understand that IMO the first shovel of dirt will win the race. Not sure how this is going to play out, but you can't ignore the obvious. Keep in mind back in 94 Georgia Frontiere did not get the votes from the owners, but stated she was going to move anyway and to avoid arbitration the owners then voted in her favor.

and you think that the $30 mil (about 17% of her teams value) she paid the league (plus other consessions) meant nothing?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I highly doubt a 2 billion dollar stadium would be built with no team to play in it. I don't see it. I use logic and common sense. In 2-3 months the task force in San Diego will come up with a stadium plan then the Rams and Raiders will come to LA. I'm telling you guys this is all planned by the NFL and league owners. When you bluff moving to LA, you "usually" get a deal done in your current city. These are smart owners the NFL is smart. They are VERY patient. They are very successful. Look at all the issues they have. It takes them months to decide on something. They don't want a losing team with an old stadium. Their plan is working. Chargers and Raiders had their chance to move to LA especially the Chargers. They had years they could have easily moved but they didn't. You telling me they were shocked by Stans movie on January? This is been going on for 2-4 years. They decided in that time frame who would play where.

 

[den-the-coach]

Den,
As always being the voice of reason and logic. You and I are clearly on the same page. A couple of tweets I found interesting from yesterdays meeting.

@

While Al Davis was the driving force behind the bylaw changes Georgia may have been the straw that broke the camels back. I don't believe such move would be tolerated today.

You might be right Goose and I don't think any owner would go rogue, however, after Georgia there were others in Art Modell and Bud Adams so we really don't know what the outcome would be, but again I concur, it will never get to that point.

 

[Username]

womp womp womp, have fun watching your Chargers

Hahahaha you don't enjoy RockStarRams and the other derelicts updates? Maybe X should start making mashup videos of all the rallys so he can steal them for his YouTube channel again.

 

[den-the-coach]

and you think that the $30 mil (about 17% of her teams value) she paid the league (plus other consessions) meant nothing?

You do mean what Kroenke paid because that's the money she used, believe Georgia also did things on somebody's else's dime.

 

[den-the-coach]

From a legal standoint that is still up in the air....you might want to read the actual case - it set no bright line rule (in fact it specifically said it did not). Add in that the league rules have supposedly changed. Now you can believe that based upon the previous case Kroenke would win (reasonable), but there certainly are grounds for a trial, and any lawyer will tell you that if a case goes to trial the outcome is NEVER certain (they may say it is probable...but not certain).

I don't want to get into a legal debate, but I bet that if an owner wants to move his or her franchise they have the right to do so without league approval, however, IMO, that won't happen because it would cause a rift. But owners have that right and Jerry Jones spoke about that not too long ago.

"If Kroenke were to buck the league's conventional rules and move without permission, it would not be the first time it has happened in the NFL. The Oakland Raiders moved to Los Angeles in 1982 after then-owner Al Davis decided to move his franchise elsewhere. Former commissioner Pete Rozelle attempted to block the move through legal proceedings, but the Raiders still left before ultimately returning to Oakland on their own accord in 1995."

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/13/7536819/jerry-jones-stan-kreonke-relocation-nfl-rams

 

[LosAngelesRams]

The stadium isn't even being built on the property that Stan bought, why? Also, he's only a partner. What does that do for him? I guess I just don't understand how moving to LA will all of a sudden make the Rams good. You still have the same Coaches, Players and FO as St.Louis did. Also, if the Rams play in Stlouis one more year and win the super bowl, how could they ever move? The Stadium will take a few years at least. Are they really going to be forced to play in the freaking Rosebowl all that time? Let's say the Rams do have a lame duck season. Then what? You get new coaches, players and FO. It takes a few years to become good and LA has lost multiple teams because they won't watch losers. There's so many factors that go into this and the LA fans seem to be completely blind about how tough it's going to be. If someone can answer those questions in a logical way, I'll start believing they have a chance to move.

1st of all, moving to LA is not going to make them a magical team that instantly starts winning. It may make them better financial due to the market being so big but thats about it. 2nd correct me if im wrong but haven't the Rams have the worst attendance in the league due to losing seasons? So i dont see how LA supporting losers and STL supporting losers is any different.

3rd, Lets not turn this into a LA vs STL thing.