New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Goose]

 

[RamFan503]

I'm in the same boat but I do believe he'd bolt if things don't get settled in St. Louis, and I can't say I'd blame him.

The reason why the Rams were low-balled in arbitration is because the City didn't think Stan would move, or had the bullets to move.

If he didn't create the threat with the L.A. land acquisition move, there would still be a belief that he wouldn't pull the trigger. Now as a result, things are progressing faster in St. Louis than they ever do, and he's afforded himself a backup plan as well as a solid property for TKG in L.A. even if the Rams stadium gets built here rather than L.A.

This is why he's a billionaire. Stan wins no matter what, but he had to convince locals that L.A. was a very, very real option.

Well put. This is what I have been thinking for some time. Hopefully with Peacock pulling the right strings and knowing how to work well with others, the Rams will have a permanent home soon.

I am a little surprised at Peacock in that he should know and keep in mind the sound bite society we are in and that it has taken steroids with Facebook and then Twitter. Comments like the part of Stan being the long term owner of the team can't play well with Stan unless he already plans to sell it. Even if he did, it's not what I would consider professional to give that kind of sucker pitch to the media.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Yes, very, very interesting.

Nice New Avatar Mr.!!

 

[Goose]

 

[tonyl711]

"They" ? Are you speaking of the City of Inglewood? If so, they have nothing to do with it. The Land is privately held. The stadium will be built by the partner ship of Kroenke and Stockbridge Capital. You read about the City Council granting permission for the land to be zoned or used for the purpose of a sports stadium. The owners will start building as soon as the permits are issued and final plans drawn ( 7 - 8 months). And, yes, they will start building even without an announcement of a team relocating.
Regarding your second point ; I have to laugh out how presumptuous you sound. You're telling me you know what Kroenke's plans are?

laugh doubly loud because your trying to say you know what Stan is going to do too.

 

[blue4]

Well put. This is what I have been thinking for some time. Hopefully with Peacock pulling the right strings and knowing how to work well with others, the Rams will have a permanent home soon.

I am a little surprised at Peacock in that he should know and keep in mind the sound bite society we are in and that it has taken steroids with Facebook and then Twitter. Comments like the part of Stan being the long term owner of the team can't play well with Stan unless he already plans to sell it. Even if he did, it's not what I would consider professional to give that kind of sucker pitch to the media.

At least it's an honest answer. I don't think Stan would view it as an issue since Peacock didn't say anything about who he wants to be the owners, just that he has no idea what will happen in regards to ownership. At least that's how I read it.

Besides, he would need to get in line if he's feeling underappreciated. His customers can relate.

 

[Goose]

 

[RamFan503]

At least it's an honest answer. I don't think Stan would view it as an issue since Peacock didn't say anything about who he wants to be the owners, just that he has no idea what will happen in regards to ownership. At least that's how I read it.

Besides, he would need to get in line if he's feeling underappreciated. His customers can relate.

No one is suggesting he should lie. That just isn't a real professional statement if that is indeed what he said. I'm not putting it out of possibility and even likelihood though that his statement was turned by the reporter.

Regardless, making statements that might piss off an owner that we all know doesn't NEED to sell, is not putting buyers you may be representing in a good bargaining position.

 

[drasconis]

I was thinking about this again (Yikes!). The only question I would have is if this is actually the way it is worded in the lease. I had assumed it was but in thinking about it, I'm not so sure. In many similar documents, there is a provision that if the two parties disagree on something substantial within the contract they both agree the next course of action is to go through an approved arbitrator.

Why that would matter is that if the Rams requested arbitration due to a perceived failure to perform - the 25% clause - that could potentially be considered breach. Even if there is a clause for the Rams to go year to year, there is a month to month clause in many leases to protect the tenant from having to just pack his crap and leave. A failure on the landlord's part is still considered a failure to perform even though the tenant is now on month to month and could leave at any time. In that case also, good luck to the landlord if he were to try to evict the tenant. He'd end up paying triple damages.

Where this might come in is that the Rams could argue that the CVC twice failed to bring the dome in line with the lease. Not sure how this would fly with the league and the progress on the new St Louis stadium but I'm thinking that if Stan IS intent on moving the team, he could potentially say that after the CVC failed twice to live up to their end of the lease and by many accounts getting the cold shoulder from city reps, he headed down the road of finding an alternative. He could then argue that only after he bought the land and had planned out his Inglewood strategy did the Governor take over and rev up the engines in St Louis. But by then, he had already bought the property in Inglewood and had likely forged a relationship with Stockbridge that would become their partnership toward a new stadium plan.

Does anyone have the wording of the actual lease? I don't recall if it has been posted here.

Keep in mind that I am only throwing this out there for discussion. I don't proclaim to know what Stan is thinking nor do I know exactly what kind of discussions he or his people had with the CVC or city reps over the years.

If the CVC had upgraded the dome as the arbitrator said then the Rams would be here...no if and or buts
It was clearly the CVCs choice to allow the lease to go year to year - that risk was on them
How much the NFL looks at the arbitration period as a "negotiation period" with STL is up to them - honestly the broad writing of the NFL constitution leaves that decision up to each voting owner to decide for themselves.

Agreed that in may contracts a disagreement needs to go to arbitration first, and that is viable.

The difference here is that the contract had specific dates for review and arbitration of this element. If you have a lease on a house and you renew it on the first of the year and your hot water goes out on Jan. 15th, and the lease states that evaluation of the property and possible repairs will be reviewed in November prior to renewel you aren't stuck waiting till then to get it fixed. Well I guess you could, but if you called the landlord and they said we will review it in November per the lease then you would go to court and claim constructive eviction (or you could start at arbitrator if the contract designated - though once again if that made you wait unreasoanbly you would just go to court). The rams basicly waited till the designated time and then gave their list of required upgrades following the lease process, not claiming a breach or eviction.

Now I will say that it is possible that the Rams may have been able to gone to court and claimed breach or constructive eviction based on the domes status...but the fact they did not results is no ruling that way means they can't claim it or say it. They used the system and timing designated in the lease thus there is no eviction or breach just options both sides could choose. Their renewel currently would likely stand as a bar to such a case now since it signals acceptance of the current state of the dome.

had a copy of the lease at one point - will dig for it....and post if i find.

 

[Mikey Ram]

I don't presume to know what he is thinking or what he will do...I do however know that I've seen NOTHING that tells me he is interested in staying in St. Louis...We'll know a lot more after this season (or sooner perhaps)...

 

[iced]

For those wondering about the Rams input with Peacock

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...-St-Louis-Stadium-Project-Future-of-Rams.aspx

Did Rams and NFL help with design?

"We meet with the NFL and Rams on a fairly frequent basis. They came in with a lot of knowledge and experience. The league sees every stadium around the country and know some of the newer 'products' within new stadiums. And the Rams have specific things they've experienced within the Edward Jones Dome that weren't optimal. If you live in a house long enough there are things you want to improve. The changes (in the design) will become less and less as we progress. I felt it was important to start sharing with people where we're at. "

 

[Sum1]

Well put. This is what I have been thinking for some time. Hopefully with Peacock pulling the right strings and knowing how to work well with others, the Rams will have a permanent home soon.

I am a little surprised at Peacock in that he should know and keep in mind the sound bite society we are in and that it has taken steroids with Facebook and then Twitter. Comments like the part of Stan being the long term owner of the team can't play well with Stan unless he already plans to sell it. Even if he did, it's not what I would consider professional to give that kind of sucker pitch to the media.

You are reading way too much into that comment and the context it was in.

He's simply saying you don't buy tickets or support a team because of the owner. You buy tickets and support your team because they are your team regardless of who owns them and at some point someone else will own the team.

 

[blue4]

No one is suggesting he should lie. That just isn't a real professional statement if that is indeed what he said. I'm not putting it out of possibility and even likelihood though that his statement was turned by the reporter.

Regardless, making statements that might pee pee off an owner that we all know doesn't NEED to sell, is not putting buyers you may be representing in a good bargaining position.

I guess I would agree if I thought it was even remotely controversial. I don't understand why Stan would take exception to it. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. It seems to me like someone asked about Stan's plans regarding ownership, and Peacock replied "I don't know, why would I know?" type of thing. I'm willing to bet Stan is Peacock's biggest fan right now because shit is getting done, and it benefits him no matter where he plans to move or do.

And really, if Stan really does give two shits about what people in STL or LA or anywhere else thought, he'd do some PR. I really honestly don't think he cares. It's like caring what the insect thinks when you debate whether to step on it or not.

Again, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

 

[RamFan503]

You are reading way too much into that comment and the context it was in.

He's simply saying you don't buy tickets or support a team because of the owner. You buy tickets and support your team because they are your team regardless of who owns them and at some point someone else will own the team.

"I don't know if Stan is the long term owner of the team." I'm not the only one who connected that statement with the rumors that Peacock is putting together an ownership group to try to buy the team. So I don't think I am. I'm sure Peacock is aware of the rumors - true or not. He should also be mindful of making those kinds of comments. Not a big deal unless Stan gets the impression he is trying to force a sale.

 

[RamFan503]

I guess I would agree if I thought it was even remotely controversial. I don't understand why Stan would take exception to it. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. It seems to me like someone asked about Stan's plans regarding ownership, and Peacock replied "I don't know, why would I know?" type of thing. I'm willing to bet Stan is Peacock's biggest fan right now because crap is getting done, and it benefits him no matter where he plans to move or do.

And really, if Stan really does give two shits about what people in STL or LA or anywhere else thought, he'd do some PR. I really honestly don't think he cares. It's like caring what the insect thinks when you debate whether to step on it or not.

Again, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

I just don't think there is good PR to be had in this leverage game. Look at how well it has worked for Spanos and Davis. I'm guessing Stan sees no upside in making statements that may or may not be true. Is it telling that he hasn't made statements? I really don't know.

I'd certainly agree with the bolded part though.

 

[den-the-coach]

Den,
I know that Peacock has been very hard at work to put together an ownership group so if a new ownership group were to come in I am confident it will be a good group. At this point I am not sure if Dave would be part of the group or not. He seems to have more of an interesting to community development than running a football team but is just speculation on my part.

So Goose convince him otherwise, if Peacock is running the Rams we might actually win a few games.

 

[blue4]

I just don't think there is good PR to be had in this leverage game. Look at how well it has worked for Spanos and Davis. I'm guessing Stan sees no upside in making statements that may or may not be true. Is it telling that he hasn't made statements? I really don't know.

I'd certainly agree with the bolded part though.

I was confused as to why you would think it's a bad statement to make, but your response to sum1 cleared that up. I can see what you're getting at now. I was wondering if we were talking about two different interviews for a minute . But, I don't really think it's a big deal. Stan's a good businessman. He knows how the game is played, knows it's very important for Peacock to massage the fan base to get what needs to be done. And even if he thought Peacock was planning to buy the team, I'm sure Stan would want to hear the offer.

 

[blue4]

Also, the problem with Davis and Spanos is that they kept talking after expressing interest in staying in their markets. They played it right by telling the fans they want to be there, IMO. I don't really think they were lying. It's the wild talk afterwards.

 

[den-the-coach]

I hate that kind of talk personally, to me it seems like poking Kroenke. He's a private man, so if he's thinking about selling would he want that out there? And if he's not thinking about selling and its a shot about forcing the team away from him, that might make him mad because its a bit of a threat.

I don't want Kroenke to sell I've posted that many times I like having an owner with money, but if it did happen I pray for an owner that wants to win football games, but again, JMHO.

 

[RamFan503]

I was confused as to why you would think it's a bad statement to make, but your response to sum1 cleared that up. I can see what you're getting at now. I was wondering if we were talking about two different interviews for a minute . But, I don't really think it's a big deal. Stan's a good businessman. He knows how the game is played, knows it's very important for Peacock to massage the fan base to get what needs to be done. And even if he thought Peacock was planning to buy the team, I'm sure Stan would want to hear the offer.

Yeah - I'm not trying to make too big of a deal out of it and you are probably right.

Also, the problem with Davis and Spanos is that they kept talking after expressing interest in staying in their markets. They played it right by telling the fans they want to be there, IMO. I don't really think they were lying. It's the wild talk afterwards.

It seems that Spanos needs to muzzle his attorney more than anything. But yeah - fine line between not enough and too much.