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.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Kevin Demoff talks about the team and Riverfront Stadium
There were more positive vibes about the Rams future in St. Louis, Tuesday night. They came from the team’s chief operating officer, Kevin Demoff. The Rams have a partnership with Lindenwood University’s Sports Management Program. Demoff spoke with students about the business of pro sports; how they can get a foot in the door. He didn’t shy away from what was on the minds of everyone from the campus to the pub down the street. In the thick of Cardinals spring training, the St. Patrick’s Day crowd at Tubby’s Pub & Grub in St. Charles was full of theories and “gut feelings” about the Rams and St. Louis’ football future.

Listen to Demoff Talk Stadium
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
It's that Irish holiday today. San Diego looooves their drinking holidays. I trolled and asked very specific questions to many Charger fans today.

wow. I was way under prepared.

these fans LOVE their team. Padres were not brought up once. AT ALL. These are real fans. One guy actually cried - his family has had season tickets his whole life. He refuses to buy them now.

He goes: chargers, hand to his heart. LA? hand across the throat like slice.

He goes: there are only two options. My Chargers or else I have no team and Karma will beat that team down and Spanos will earn what he deserves by abandoning us.

Was pretty emotional.

Can't believe they didn't even mention the team that only has had 14 winning seasons when you were asking them about their football team. True fans.
 
Last edited:

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
They might not let Stan move if Carson starts to look up. Why would they allow Stan to move and not the other two? If you follow the money, it makes more sense to move two California franchises within California than move one from the Midwest.
That's what makes this whole LA race so intresting. If SD and OAK can't get a stadium and STL does then I think it could get ugly.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
This article would have a lot more credibility if the writer didn't pee pee on Shane Gray.
This clown is doing exactly what he accuses Shane of doing... trying to state theory as fact.

"Kroenke’s partnered with the Stockbridge Capital Group. They’re overseeing The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative in Inglewood California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Part of this revitalization project includes the building of an 80,000 seat football stadium which will return the NFL to the Los Angeles area after what will have been a 21 year hiatus.

This isn’t speculation. This is fact. It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. And if Kroenke’s building it, it’s going to be the Rams' eventual home base. If you think otherwise you’re dealing with fantasy."
Ummm, clown.... until any of this actually happens? It's speculation. And yes, there is that possibility it could get stopped... by the courts... the fine people of Inglewood (who I still don't believe have been given a fiar shot at understanding all that building that "complex" might mean to them (traffic, infrstructure, etc. I'm sure all of that has been "minimized"?). Then, of cousee, there's the NFL itself and it's owners. Despite what some here think, Kroenke might not be able to just bully his way around the NFL to get his way.

The fact that a few trucks are showing up in Inglewood and pushing piles of dirt around doesn't make it a certainty that "It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening."

Just trying to stir up shyte... clown.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
This clown is doing exactly what he accuses Shane of doing... trying to state theory as fact.

"Kroenke’s partnered with the Stockbridge Capital Group. They’re overseeing The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative in Inglewood California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Part of this revitalization project includes the building of an 80,000 seat football stadium which will return the NFL to the Los Angeles area after what will have been a 21 year hiatus.

This isn’t speculation. This is fact. It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. And if Kroenke’s building it, it’s going to be the Rams' eventual home base. If you think otherwise you’re dealing with fantasy."
Ummm, clown.... until any of this actually happens? It's speculation. And yes, there is that possibility it could get stopped... by the courts... the fine people of Inglewood (who I still don't believe have been given a fiar shot at understanding all that building that "complex" might mean to them (traffic, infrstructure, etc. I'm sure all of that has been "minimized"?). Then, of cousee, there's the NFL itself and it's owners. Despite what some here think, Kroenke might not be able to just bully his way around the NFL to get his way.

The fact that a few trucks are showing up in Inglewood and pushing piles of dirt around doesn't make it a certainty that "It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening."

Just trying to stir up shyte... clown.

Um..... I don't see where he's wrong in the top half.

He said Kroenke partnered with Stockbridge. That is true.
He said they're overseeing the Champions project. That is true.
He said part of the project is an NFL stadium. That is true.
He said it will return the NFL to LA. Also true.

So those would be facts.

And its happening, they're building. How are the courts going to stop it? On what grounds? There was overwhelming support from Inglewood residents, why would they suddenly change their minds now? I mean there is plenty of extra information out there, its not like Inglewood doesn't have the internet, if anyone is concerned they can look up details just as you or I can.

Unless Kroenke decides to stop it, it's happening.

The Rams haven't been confirmed, but its widely believed for obvious reasons they would look to move, so that's a bit of speculation, albeit on good tangible information from what we do know. Downplaying the project as if its not going to happen or nothing is going on though is essentially ignoring information.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Unless Kroenke decides to stop it, it's happening.

The Rams haven't been confirmed, but its widely believed for obvious reasons they would look to move, so that's a bit of speculation, albeit on good tangible information from what we do know. Downplaying the project as if its not going to happen or nothing is going on though is essentially ignoring information.

I don't get why people point to the Oakland Raiders winning their legislation from eons ago and assume that the NFL didn't bring back in their lawyers to tweak their contracts to avoid this in the future.

Stadium* committee believes they can block a move (most notably art Rooney). Not that this matters - Kroenke has already said he won't go against the Committe's decision.
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I don't get why people point to the Oakland Raiders winning their legislation from eons ago and assume that the NFL didn't bring back in their lawyers to tweak their contracts to avoid this in the future.

Competition committee believes they can block a move (most notably art Rooney). Not that this matters - Kroenke has already said he won't go against the Committe's decision.

My main reason is that I looked at the bylaws and I don't see anything that gives them extra ammo to win. Maybe I missed it though, but so far nobody has been able to tell me exactly what they changed that gives them said ammo.

I'm assuming you mean the owners vote not the Competition Committe, but when did Kroenke say he would honor a decision if it says he can't move? I heard he wouldn't move without taking it to a vote first, but nothing about him accepting a 'no' or not up and moving anyway if they say no.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
My main reason is that I looked at the bylaws and I don't see anything that gives them extra ammo to win. Maybe I missed it though, but so far nobody has been able to tell me exactly what they changed that gives them said ammo.

I'm assuming you mean the owners vote not the Competition Committe, but when did Kroenke say he would honor a decision if it says he can't move? I heard he wouldn't move without taking it to a vote first, but nothing about him accepting a 'no' or not up and moving anyway if they say no.

yea stadium committee - gotta love those brain farts lol

I heard he would "follow the process" - and actually the NFL can do something. Apparently they caused the Seahawks in '95 to reconsider moving

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150117-story.html#page=1

The NFL does not have a strong track record in blocking teams from relocating. The only instance in the modern era of a team moving to a new city, then reversing its decision after pressure from the league, came in 1996, when the Seattle Seahawks set up operations for one week in Anaheim. But Ken Behring, who owned the team at the time, immediately moved back to Seattle when then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue threatened to fine the franchise.

According to the relocation rules, moving without approval can result in the teams loss on the TV Market share (last year was $200m) and revenues generated from Merchandise.

which bylaws specifically did you look at?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
yea stadium committee - gotta love those brain farts lol

I heard he would "follow the process" - and actually the NFL can do something. Apparently they caused the Seahawks in '95 to reconsider moving

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150117-story.html#page=1



According to the relocation rules, moving without approval can result in the teams loss on the TV Market share (last year was $200m) and revenues generated from Merchandise.

which bylaws specifically did you look at?

The Seahawks situation is different. IIRC, they still had a lease in Seattle and that is what ultimately forced them back.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
Um..... I don't see where he's wrong in the top half.

He said it will return the NFL to LA. Also true.

So those would be facts.

And its happening, they're building. How are the courts going to stop it? On what grounds?

That last one is NOT a fact - at least not yet. Many projects for the NFL returning to LA have occurred and fallen through. IT is reasonable to believe this one will succeed, but until it actually does it is NOT a fact.

You ask how the courts could stop it - if he goes rouge and tries to move without approval and it goes to court, he takes the NFL to court to move and loses. If that happens then yes the courts can stop it...part of such a decision would be an injunction for the NFL against the move.

Now it is fine to say that is unlikely, that it is unlikely it goes to court, that it is unlikely that the NFL would win, etc. But since it hasn't happened and the final result isn't known thus it can NOT be fact...yet.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
The point of these particular bylaws is to protect the city and the fans by not having an owner move out of the city just because he wants to. It's basically saying the NFL cares. Does the NFL care? Would the NFL rather have a team in STL then in LA? Does the NFL want to have the most expensive stadium in the world 1.86 bill? Would the NFL want to challenge Stan in court? Does the NFL really want a franchise in LA? They said they want 2 teams in LA. Does the NFL want an owner to own the land and stadium in LA? Would the NFL want a team to succeed in LA? Do the owners realize the there are more Rams fans in LA then there are raiders and chargers fans? Thus the Rams have the best chance to succeed right from the go. Do they do market research? Did they watch last years game vs the chargers and see all the Rams fans? Do they realize with his wife owns 11 bill and it would be backed up by a powerful owner not a third party which is also powerful in Goldman Sachs? Would they want to re align the AFC if the chargers and raiders playing in carson? Would they want the Rams back in la Bc they're in NFL west? Idk the answers to these question and I'm not being funny and sarcastic. I try to use my common sense and answer it. BUT and this is serious. If oak and sd can't get a stadium then it's a no to all these question and the Rams most likely stay in STL.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
My main reason is that I looked at the bylaws and I don't see anything that gives them extra ammo to win. Maybe I missed it though, but so far nobody has been able to tell me exactly what they changed that gives them said ammo.

I'm assuming you mean the owners vote not the Competition Committe, but when did Kroenke say he would honor a decision if it says he can't move? I heard he wouldn't move without taking it to a vote first, but nothing about him accepting a 'no' or not up and moving anyway if they say no.


You might want to look at the actual case itself....the judge basically makes clear he is NOT making a broad ruling saying that the NFL can't block moves, but in that specific situation they couldn't. He also goes out of his way to point out areas of evidence the NFL did not bring in that might have helped their case.

Note such things do not make it a slam dunk for the NFL, but it does lend itself to different arguments being used that may win this time for the NFL...I would sitll say it an uphill battle for the NFL but it isn't 99%-1% (lsoing - winning) more like a 65-35 (in my opinion only).
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The Seahawks situation is different. IIRC, they still had a lease in Seattle and that is what ultimately forced them back.

Not so sure about that..


http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-04/sports/sp-32247_1_ken-behring

"We couldn't contact the Rose Bowl yet because we don't want any possibility of Seattle starting legal action to take the team away from us," he said. "It just depends on when our legal counsel determines we can do that, but I can tell you this, I'm committed to Los Angeles."

"We know morally we can't play in the Kingdome. We cannot take the liability, morally or financially, to play in a place where we are fully aware of the dangers. Their own report addresses the seismic concerns."

For that reason, Behring said, he does not expect the NFL to block the Seahawks' move to Los Angeles. He said he will present his case to fellow owners at this week's meetings in Chicago.

pixel.gif

"We have been working with the NFL for the last year, and we will try to do everything within the rules when we start talking about a permanent site for a stadium," he said. "But who knows?

Sounds more and more to me like the NFL did Block them - especially since they had already set up shop in Anaheim for at least a week.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
By the way - for those who like to point out Oakland winning 20 years ago as some kind of precedent...

the last time the NFL and Al Davis went to court, Al Davis lost, claiming that the NFL forced the Raiders back to Oakland. He lost $1.2 billion lawsuit.

http://a.espncdn.com/nfl/news/2001/0521/1202399.html

I think the NFL has a lot more ammo than what the media is trying to lead with.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Lmfao at AEG


AEG attacks ‘fast-tracked’ Carson NFL stadium proposal, fearing competition for StubHub Center
By: Nick Green (nick.green@dailybreeze.com)

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - 7:56 p.m.

AR-150319537.jpg

This undated artist rendering provided by MANICA Architecture shows an artist's rendering of a newly proposed NFL stadium in the city of Carson, Calif. The Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers are jointly planning a shared stadium if both teams fail to get new deals in their current hometowns. The proposed $1.7 billion stadium would be in Carson, Calif., 15 miles south of downtown Los Angeles and home to the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team. (AP Photo/MANICA Architecture)

Anschutz Entertainment Group, owner of Carson's 125-acre StubHub Center, has warned Mayor Jim Dear in a letter that fast-tracking a "deeply flawed" NFL stadium proposal and avoiding an extensive environmental analysis "is an open invitation to litigation."

In the six-page letter, AEG maintained there are "numerous environmental and operational impacts" between the sports complex on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills - home to Major League Soccer's Los Angeles Galaxy - and the proposed NFL site on Avalon Boulevard about 2 miles to the south.

The "substantial overlap" between the NFL and MLS seasons could create significant effects on traffic, parking and police and fire services given the proximity of the two venues, argued Ted Fikre, AEG's chief legal and development officer.

Fikre said Carson's leaders should "be mindful of ensuring the continued success of the StubHub Center and the Galaxy."

"As one of Carson's biggest investors and business stakeholders, AEG has an interest in advocating for a responsible approach to major developments in the community," Fikre said.

This is the second time that AEG, which last week abandoned longtime plans to build an NFL venue in downtown Los Angeles, has launched an attack on a competing Southern California stadium proposal.

Last month, the global sports franchise and arena owner and operator commissioned a report by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge that maintained the Inglewood NFL stadium site represented a security risk as a potential terrorist target. It sits under the Los Angeles International Airport flight path on the former Hollywood Park racetrack.

Supporters of the Inglewood and Carson proposals have collected signatures with the goal of showing significant public support for the projects.

In Inglewood, which dreams of luring the Rams from St. Louis back to Los Angeles, backers quickly collected 20,000 signatures. That prompted the City Council to bypass a public vote and begin laying a foundation for the stadium development process itself.

Much to AEG's alarm,<URL destination="http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...-of-carson-nfl-stadium-plan-at-petition-rally"> the goal in Carson is to put the 72,000-capacity stadium on a similar track. The NFL's Chargers and Raiders have both expressed interest in sharing the facility if they are unable to hammer out new stadium deals in San Diego and Oakland.

</URL>"With the proposed initiative, there is no review under (state environmental law), no public process and no public dialogue about the types of benefits provided by other large-scale projects such as the ones AEG has developed through a thorough and transparent public process involving extensive community input," the company wrote. "We have a very substantial investment in Carson, which will be placed at risk if a loophole is exploited to avoid and evade the protections described above."

Dear on Tuesday declined substantive comment and would not be drawn in on whether AEG was obliquely threatening a lawsuit in its lengthy letter.

"They're bringing up a lot of legal issues here," Dear said. "I'm going to pass it on to the city attorney."

Sunny Soltani, the city attorney, did not respond to a message left seeking comment.

More than 1 million fans a year visit StubHub Center, which hosts cycling, boxing, tennis, concerts and other events in addition to Galaxy and international games.

Carson had little say over the development of AEG's athletic complex on the university campus, which opened in 2003 and was approved by the California State University Board of Trustees.

The next year AEG won conceptual approval for a 200-room conference center and hotel with a restaurant, sports bar and coffee shop adjacent to the grassy berm that overlooks the north end of the soccer stadium, which has a maximum capacity of 27,000. The $60 million project was never built.

The NFL stadium proposal includes up to 850,000 square feet of associated commercial development, including a 350-room hotel on the site, a former garbage dump.

However, AEG noted that only 10,000 parking spaces are required for the entire project.

In a sense, AEG is resurrecting fears over excessive traffic that opponents of its own project raised initially.

Indeed, the city backed the project in 2001 - then-councilman Dear held the swing vote - only after AEG threatened to kill the sports complex without municipal support.

Neighbors who opposed the project were furious at the time.

"We were sold out by the mayor and council members," said Irene Williams, who lives near the university. "They're not concerned about the citizens of Carson. They're concerned about what we can get out of this.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,199
Name
Stu
The penalties that are in place now were not in place to punish Al.
This has been an assumption based on interviews and statements. What new penalties are in place since Georgia and Davis moved their teams against NFL wishes? The NFL did try to block both moves and also tried to fine Al. I would think the NFL would want to avoid court as I would fear that their bylaws would be exposed and it potentially could open a can of worms.

Kevin Demoff talks about the team and Riverfront Stadium
There were more positive vibes about the Rams future in St. Louis, Tuesday night. They came from the team’s chief operating officer, Kevin Demoff. The Rams have a partnership with Lindenwood University’s Sports Management Program. Demoff spoke with students about the business of pro sports; how they can get a foot in the door. He didn’t shy away from what was on the minds of everyone from the campus to the pub down the street. In the thick of Cardinals spring training, the St. Patrick’s Day crowd at Tubby’s Pub & Grub in St. Charles was full of theories and “gut feelings” about the Rams and St. Louis’ football future.

Listen to Demoff Talk Stadium
This is where I find encouragement. Maybe it's just me but it seemed that KD was hinting at the idea that the leverage is paying off and the new stadium is shaping up to be a very nice venue for the Rams.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
which bylaws specifically did you look at

I just looked at their constitution. Looked over it, did searches for key words (relocation, Los Angeles, Rams, Raiders, etc). So its not out of the questions I missed something.

That last one is NOT a fact - at least not yet. Many projects for the NFL returning to LA have occurred and fallen through. IT is reasonable to believe this one will succeed, but until it actually does it is NOT a fact

If a team goes to LA because Inglewood forced the issue (meaning Chargers or Raiders as well) then it is. It hasn't happened yet, but by almost all accounts it will happen soon. Which is what he says.

You ask how the courts could stop it - if he goes rouge and tries to move without approval and it goes to court, he takes the NFL to court to move and loses. If that happens then yes the courts can stop it...part of such a decision would be an injunction for the NFL against the move.

I thought he was saying the courts could stop the Inglewood project from being built. The courts could stop the Rams from moving. They can't force Kroenke to pay for anything he doesn't want to pay for though. A lot of things will depend on how much Kroenke really wants to move.

By the way - for those who like to point out Oakland winning 20 years ago as some kind of precedent...

the last time the NFL and Al Davis went to court, Al Davis lost, claiming that the NFL forced the Raiders back to Oakland. He lost $1.2 billion lawsuit.

http://a.espncdn.com/nfl/news/2001/0521/1202399.html

I think the NFL has a lot more ammo than what the media is trying to lead with.

Slightly different case, but interesting nonetheless.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
This has been an assumption based on interviews and statements. What new penalties are in place since Georgia and Davis moved their teams against NFL wishes? The NFL did try to block both moves and also tried to fine Al. I would think the NFL would want to avoid court as I would fear that their bylaws would be exposed and it potentially could open a can of worms.
.

It's not an assumption

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.



I just looked at their constitution. Looked over it, did searches for key words (relocation, Los Angeles, Rams, Raiders, etc). So its not out of the questions I missed something.

BTW Directly from the NFL Bylaws

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

Further Resolved, that the Executive committee hereby reaffirms that, in light of the importance of a second greater Los Angeles area team to the League's television packages and to other interests of the League, after the Rams relocation to St.Louis the league, as a collective whole, will own and control the second franchise opportunity in the gReater Los Angeles area; that no club may appropriate such opportunity for itself without the consent of the Executive Committee, as required by section 4.3 of the League Constitution and Bylaws; and that any further relocation of a member club to the Greater Los Angeles area shall be conditioned upon the payment of an appropriate franchise enhancement fee and satisfaction of other terms (including terms consistent with those set forth above) to be determined pursuant to procedures and/or criteria to be promulgated by the Commissioner;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.