New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[mr.stlouis]

Looking good STL! NFL is on our side and Dave Peacock keeps checking boxes. A winning season would ensure public funding and Stan would come to the table.

Keep the faith, Ram bros.


SD and OAK are helping big time. It makes sense.

 

[Goose]

Thats awesome, hey maybe start a running thread?

Done.

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/running.35622/

 

[Goose]

ESPN just had a guy on that said he talked to multiple sources that Stan is moving the team regardless of what the league says and that those same sources have said that the Chargers and Raiders plan has a long ways to go if it'll ever happen, he talked like they're gonna get new deals in their cities. And that if the NFL tries to block the Rams move Stan will just sue.

In my best Third Eye Blind voice - "I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend". I know that things can look bleak but trust me when I tell you that this thing is far from settled. Dave Peacock and the Task Group have been very hard at work and their approach to work directly with the NFL, so far, is paying off. The Carson project helps STL because even though Stan may represent the best chance of getting back to LA now he doesn't represent the only chance. If the Carson project is viable that offers a California solution for the California teams which if you believe the reports is the NFL preference. STL is the only current market that has a viable plan but they need to keep progressing. While I can't tell you how trustworthy that reporter from ESPN is or his sources it has been reported multiple times that Stan will not go rogue. Also the owners believe they have the legal backing to prevent a move and large enough penalties to discourage one as well. Chris Mortenson reported after the Carson project was announce that it not as simple as just suing to get your way. So while it is possible they may move it is no longer inevitable which I don't think I would have said a month ago.

 

[iced]

Actually just saw this mentioned in an video and it made me think: Does Kroenke really have a leg to stand on, especially from a legal perspective? The league is already cutting him a break on Cross ownership rules - if he were to take the route that many people speculate about going rogue and fighting it in court, the NFL could just easily squash it by no longer giving that break. Just some food for thought

 

[RamFan503]

Actually just saw this mentioned in an video and it made me think: Does Kroenke really have a leg to stand on, especially from a legal perspective? The league is already cutting him a break on Cross ownership rules - if he were to take the route that many people speculate about going rogue and fighting it in court, the NFL could just easily squash it by no longer giving that break. Just some food for thought

I don't think you are going to get a definitive answer here as I think that is way beyond anyone's pay grade. I'm not even sure the rule itself is enforceable. Can anyone tell me how that rule affects the NFL and it's ability to do business? Maybe how it negatively affects them? It always seemed like such a strange requirement.

 

[iced]

I don't think you are going to get a definitive answer here as I think that is way beyond anyone's pay grade. I'm not even sure the rule itself is enforceable. Can anyone tell me how that rule affects the NFL and it's ability to do business? Maybe how it negatively affects them? It always seemed like such a strange requirement.

i have no doubt the rule is enforceable - they could easily make him sell it off..

however there's some rumors he may transfer it off to his son - but he has yet to do so, therefore i guess you could technically say the NFL has some leverage. the issue is the nuggets and avalanche, not arsenal

I thought it was interesting but it may not amount to much - guess it depends on what he can do with it

 

[RamFan503]

i have no doubt the rule is enforceable - they could easily make him sell it off..

however there's some rumors he may transfer it off to his son - but he has yet to do so, therefore i guess you could technically say the NFL has some leverage. the issue is the nuggets and avalanche, not arsenal

I thought it was interesting but it may not amount to much - guess it depends on what he can do with it

Not sure. I've heard some say it has no merit. Seems odd that they would let it go so often if it really mattered. And it is hard to stead fastly enforce a rule you have repeatedly let get violated.

As far as making him sell it off, I really can't see it. Talk about interfering with someone's ability to do business.

Why do you think they have the rule? I'm asking because I honestly don't get it and most I've talked to don't either. No other sport has it.

 

[ChrisW]

Not sure. I've heard some say it has no merit. Seems odd that they would let it go so often if it really mattered. And it is hard to stead fastly enforce a rule you have repeatedly let get violated.

As far as making him sell it off, I really can't see it. Talk about interfering with someone's ability to do business.

Why do you think they have the rule? I'm asking because I honestly don't get it and most I've talked to don't either. No other sport has it.

The rule is here on page 173:
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

I can't find the penalties for breaking this though.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Last report about cross ownership issues was that he asked for an extension (which we all know) that goes until the end of this year, and that those who know more about it that I do say that the expectation is that he'll have it all settled in a few months. I don't think that issue would come up in any attempt to fight the league about a move.

 

[RamFan503]

The rule is here on page 173:
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

I can't find the penalties for breaking this though.

Thanks. Does anyone else read these rules and come to the conclusion that they are meant to be so vague as to allow the NFL to enforce them as they see fit? I've never seen such ambiguity in bylaws. I don't see anywhere where it expressly prohibits cross ownership.

My guess though is that #4 is the real crux behind the reason. They want the ability to review an owner's ability to afford to operate the NFL franchise above all other sports franchises.

 

[dhaab]

Actually just saw this mentioned in an video and it made me think: Does Kroenke really have a leg to stand on, especially from a legal perspective? The league is already cutting him a break on Cross ownership rules - if he were to take the route that many people speculate about going rogue and fighting it in court, the NFL could just easily squash it by no longer giving that break. Just some food for thought

Exactly. There seems to be a large amount LA people who simply assume that one of the wealthiest owners in the league will automatically just get his way and move the team away from St. Louis, no matter what the rest of the NFL thinks about it. I'm guessing this stems from their belief that the richer a person is in this world, the more he gets what he wants.

 

[dhaab]

Last report about cross ownership issues was that he asked for an extension (which we all know) that goes until the end of this year, and that those who know more about it that I do say that the expectation is that he'll have it all settled in a few months. I don't think that issue would come up in any attempt to fight the league about a move.

The latest I've read was that they were going to give him another extension because of the long process of estate planning, but there were some owners who weren't happy that he was still transferring the teams 4 years after the whole cross ownership thing began.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The latest I've read was that they were going to give him another extension because of the long process of estate planning, but there were some owners who weren't happy that he was still transferring the teams 4 years after the whole cross ownership thing began.

When did you hear that? I know that when he got the first extension some owners weren't too thrilled (and he didn't actually get enough votes that would allow relocation, but he did get enough for the extension, not that it means anything, but it was mentioned a few times in articles), but most understood that it can be harder than a lot of people realize to do it all correctly.

 

[drasconis]

When did you hear that? I know that when he got the first extension some owners weren't too thrilled (and he didn't actually get enough votes that would allow relocation, but he did get enough for the extension, not that it means anything, but it was mentioned a few times in articles), but most understood that it can be harder than a lot of people realize to do it all correctly.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/kroenke-in-the-room/article_60c2cf9e-d6db-5082-93e3-f77d9f719329.html
was the best article I could find on it (most predated the meeting and talked aobut the upcoming vote). Looks like he got 12 months more back in Oct. There are reports taht he got just barely enough votes get it but since the NFL doesn't publish such things I take that with serious grain of salt.
I agree moving such expensive assets is very difficult going to bea lot of hopes to try to reduce the tax burden.
At the end of the day I don't take to much into this issue one way or another, and it is doubtful it would effect a moving vote.
It only becomes an issue if he goes full rogue. I admit I havea belief that a small group of owners want the league kneecapped. They do not want to destroy the league, but they want the "league" and the commisioner much weaker. They would like the NFL to be much more like MLB, so they share less revenue and do not have salary caps. I could be wrong but I see one of the leaders of this being JJ. He clearly believes he would have the yankees of the NFL if the league was weaker, and has made it clear he work to that end. (note this is only belief/opinion).

 

[den-the-coach]

Stadium economics: How building a venue in Inglewood makes financial sense

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stadium-economics-20150226-story.html#page=1

It's not every day that a real estate developer considers walking away from $400 million in tax money.

But for St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, it just might make sense.

Moving his team to his 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood will boost the Rams' profits and greatly increase the value of the franchise, sports economists say. And there is even more money to be made in the massive real estate development around it.

All that helps explain how Kroenke might profit from building the most expensive stadium ever in the U.S. — with no public money.

The terms of Kroenke's arrangement with Stockbridge Capital — the Bay Area investment firm that's been financing the redevelopment of the Hollywood Park property for a decade — haven't been disclosed. But Chris Meany, a senior vice president for the project, confirmed that Kroenke has bought a stake in Hollywood Park Land Co. and that his involvement extends beyond the stadium.

That means the deal would not be "unwound," even if the Rams don't move to L.A., Meany said. The Inglewood stadium proposal still must navigate the Byzantine politics of winning NFL approval should Kroenke formally request to move the Rams.

Even without the development deal, some economists see a strong case for moving from a smaller market to Southern California.

Although NFL franchises split about two-thirds of the league's revenue — including television contracts worth $4.9 billion last year — local factors could give a big boost to Kroenke's profits, said John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University economist who studies the NFL.

One way to make that investment back is to use the stadium for more than just pro football.

The Dallas Cowboys' AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, and the San Francisco 49ers' Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif., are helping to pay down their 10-figure price tags by hosting big-name concerts, international soccer matches, motocross and pro wrestling matches.

It's a way to make more money from $10 beers, $40 parking spaces and luxury suites, said Victor Matheson, a sports economist at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Mass.

"You want to use these things as much as you can," he said. "But there's just not that many 60,000-plus person events."

Inglewood NFL stadium And the stadium would be entering a crowded market. The Rose Bowl and the Los Angeles Coliseum have long-term contracts with UCLA and USC football, respectively, and have been branching out to attract more concerts and soccer. Dodger Stadium, Stubhub Center in Carson and Staples Center also compete for some of the same events that might fill seats in Inglewood.

"There are events for stadiums, but it's not an infinite number," said Darryl Dunn, general manager of the Rose Bowl.

A state-of-the-art stadium could draw new events, said David Simon, president of the L.A. Sports Council. Today, the Southland can't host a Super Bowl because it doesn't have an NFL team. Nor can L.A. host an NCAA basketball Final Four, because it doesn't have a large enough indoor arena.

The Inglewood stadium is being designed with those sort of opportunities in mind, Meany of the Hollywood Park Land Co. said. It would be covered with a roof made of a clear plastic film — allowing it to host "indoor" basketball events — with open-air sides to let in the Southern California climate.

"This will accommodate basketball, soccer, concerts," he said. Hollywood Park plans would make the football stadium the hub of a larger sports and entertainment district with a performing arts center and a broader development that would include six or seven office buildings, a shopping center 1 1/2 times the size of the Grove in West L.A., and about 2,500 new homes.

The Inglewood stadium would sit relatively low in the ground, and face the shopping center at its narrowest point, with an open plaza, instead of a broad expanse of concrete. It would include 12,000 on-site parking spaces for tailgaters on game days, plus more at the neighboring Forum.

That's a different approach than the one being pitched in St. Louis or the Carson project that involves the Chargers and Raiders, who last week released a video of a bowl ringed with vast tailgating lots on their 168-acre site.

The Inglewood development underscores why big-time sports aren't just about sports anymore, said Fort, the University of Michigan sports economist. The sports are often the anchor of a larger enterprise.

"It's getting tough to tell whether they're baseball teams or sports networks, basketball teams or part of a real estate development," he said. "That changes the perspective. The stakes have gone up."

tim.Logan@latimes.com

Twitter: @bytimlogan

 

[dieterbrock]

Not sure. I've heard some say it has no merit. Seems odd that they would let it go so often if it really mattered. And it is hard to stead fastly enforce a rule you have repeatedly let get violated.

As far as making him sell it off, I really can't see it. Talk about interfering with someone's ability to do business.

Why do you think they have the rule? I'm asking because I honestly don't get it and most I've talked to don't either. No other sport has it.

In order to make an owner sell a sports franchise you basically have to prove that they are doing financial disservice to the other league owners. Heck Donald Sterling was suing the NBA to keep from having to sell the Clippers and had he not received an offer that was almost 4 times more than the value of the team, he may not have had to sell.
There's no way they could "make" Kroenke sell over cross ownership especially if he were to move the team to LA and increase its "value" to 2 billion. Even the St Louis proposal for a new stadium will increase the value of the team.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I can't hold my silence anymore. I would like to apologize to the moderators. Prime Time, and whoever else and everybody. I don't want to get banned but I have to vent. I've refrained from commenting in this thread but I gotta get this off my chest.

ESPN just had a guy on that said he talked to multiple sources that Stan is moving the team regardless of what the league says and that those same sources have said that the Chargers and Raiders plan has a long ways to go if it'll ever happen, he talked like they're gonna get new deals in their cities. And that if the NFL tries to block the Rams move Stan will just sue.

(Line deleted)

Congrats LA fans you're getting your team back, unless God himself comes down from heaven and says to Stan, keep the team in St. Louis or else. That is what it will be if the Rams stay: an Act of God. I've been optimistic until I watched Sportscenter 15 minutes ago.

LA fans, please be respectful of STL fans like myself and don't rub it in. That's all I ask. I will root for the Rams this year, after that, I don't know what the hell I'm doing. Grown up with this team and put up with their crap football and now I'm gonna suffer with them freaking leaving. freaking bull crap.

OK... now...

...go back and think about how many times ESPN has erroneously reported things about the Rams.

Basic stuff... like a totally erroneous assessment of a player... or simple stats.

Fact is, as a national network, they are not tuned into the local markets (execpt the ones they are enamored with and we all know who those are).

STL is far off their radar and have been since the GSOT.

So, to believe the ill-informed is to become the ill-informed.

ESPN employs Steven A. Smith and Skip Useless.

'nuff said!!!!

 

[ChrisW]

Thanks. Does anyone else read these rules and come to the conclusion that they are meant to be so vague as to allow the NFL to enforce them as they see fit? I've never seen such ambiguity in bylaws. I don't see anywhere where it expressly prohibits cross ownership.

My guess though is that #4 is the real crux behind the reason. They want the ability to review an owner's ability to afford to operate the NFL franchise above all other sports franchises.

The part to me that sticks out is the 3/4 vote. But is that only when someone that owns other franchises in a non competing market tries to buy an NFL franchise? As in lets say the owner of the portland timbers wants to buy the Seahawks. Is that the only place you'd see a 3/4 vote? Or does Kroenke have to go through it after he thinks he's divested his interests?

 

[den-the-coach]

ESPN employs Steven A. Smith and Skip Useless.

'nuff said!!!!

Hear Hear!

 

[drasconis]

Thanks. Does anyone else read these rules and come to the conclusion that they are meant to be so vague as to allow the NFL to enforce them as they see fit? I've never seen such ambiguity in bylaws. I don't see anywhere where it expressly prohibits cross ownership.

My guess though is that #4 is the real crux behind the reason. They want the ability to review an owner's ability to afford to operate the NFL franchise above all other sports franchises.

I was looking more at #1 with the conflict of interest as one of the big issues. This goes towards the leagues arguments that they are franchises and their actual competition is other sports entertainment. There would be concern that an owner may use their knowledge to hurt or steal business for their team in the other sport away from another franchise (or appear to). While I do not really think it is much of an issue in the NFL, I guess there are few areas where it could happen. For instance Kroenke may know what the schedule for the NFL is ahead of it be published, he could in theory, use that knowledge to push to have certain games in NBA or NHL opposite the Broncos home games (OK, I realize that currently it really wouldn't matter...but think if the Broncos had downturn like ATL). He might be able to hurt attendance for a competing club (a big IF). The other thought is that the NFL may do things as an overall organization to help teams sell/retain suites (I do not know if they do or do not) and he could use that sort of information to better compete for that business with his other clubs.

Doubt it really would happen or affect much, but I get the concern over appearances.