New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[beej]

It's possible, maybe even likely that SK has 2 sets of plans for that property. One for if the stl proposal fails and one if it goes through. If that's the case they could be doing the prep work that's common to both plans. Merely speculation on my part. But that's what I would do in his shoes.

 

[RamFan503]

I always thought that was more of Stan would take it to a vote so the NFL has a chance to give their blessing on a move (thus saving face), rather than not challenging them if they deny him. I may have read it wrong/missed a different article though.

While that may be true, I don't think he or his people have said anything about it - either way.

 

[RamFan503]

It's possible, maybe even likely that SK has 2 sets of plans for that property. One for if the stl proposal fails and one if it goes through. If that's the case they could be doing the prep work that's common to both plans. Merely speculation on my part. But that's what I would do in his shoes.

I'd almost guarantee it. Besides, I believe what will be seen in conjunction with starting dirt work on the stadium itself will be a huge hole being excavated. They are sinking it something like 100 feet - right?

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's possible, maybe even likely that SK has 2 sets of plans for that property. One for if the stl proposal fails and one if it goes through. If that's the case they could be doing the prep work that's common to both plans. Merely speculation on my part. But that's what I would do in his shoes.

That would be my guess too, he pretty much has the option to change on the fly up to when they start pouring concrete, so I think he'll continue working on Inglewood, while St Louis works on their offer, and when it comes time to pour he'll look over the options and pick what he feels is best for him. The more the riverfront stadium evolves the better chance they have of him taking the offer (assuming they don't step backwards). I don't think he's going to have his options be contingent on if another option can or can't get done, because he wants to hold the cards, but the better the St Louis project, the harder it is for him to walk away.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I drove by, but not to check out the site, so I didn't go to look around or anything. However knowing what part is his land is, you can tell they're doing things there. They're doing stuff to the entire area really, but that doesn't mean it's for the stadium itself, it just means the land they're going to sit it on is being prepped for the water, power, etc. Again though, they need to do that for whatever they build there, so it doesn't mean much until they start laying concrete and everything for the stadium itself. What they're doing now can be used for a stadium, or retail, or apartments, or whatever they put there. What it does though, is shorten the time between permits for the stadium (or whatever they need) and actually building, because the prep work will be done already.

Agree.

But the clown in that article basically omplied that the moving of dirt was specifically for the stadium and, therefore, it's gonna happen.

Tried to pawn the activity of moving dirt around in Inglewood as proof it's a fact the stadium is gonna happen.

The two are mutually exclusive as of right now.

This thing could go in any number of directions. It is not a fact that the stadium is gonna happen.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Agree.

But the clown in that article basically omplied that the moving of dirt was specifically for the stadium and, therefore, it's gonna happen.

Tried to pawn the activity of moving dirt around in Inglewood as proof it's a fact the stadium is gonna happen.

The two are mutually exclusive as of right now.

This thing could go in any number of directions. It is not a fact that the stadium is gonna happen.

At this point there's not a fact that anything can happen, Inglewood, St Louis, everything is speculation.

 

[iced]

First off - I was referring to the exemption that allows for a salary cap. If - as you said - that would be in jeopardy, how would they allow the NBA to keep theirs? I don't think they can pick and choose like that and most rumblings I have heard mention all pro sports leagues - not just the NFL.

I wasn't saying the Salary Cap was an exemption (nor am I sure that the salary cap is an actual legal exemption). What I was saying is if the lost the exemption status, the salary cap would be gone.

The NFL is not tip toeing the anti-trust laws, they have been granted an exemption from some of them. The biggest exemption being - as far as I understand - the one that allows for the salary cap. Without it, the small market teams would have difficulty competing. It that respect, losing that exemption could actually benefit Stan in a move to LA. He could be the George Steinbrenner of the West.

This is not what I am being told.

Honestly, it seems to me that the NFL itself has far more to fear from a lawsuit than Stan. If Congress were to start looking into removing the exemptions, I would guess that they would also be raising hell over the idea that a non-profit could lose $300 million+ while their CEO brings in $44 million.

Hehe, there's a lot long with congress that we could talk about - including their own salaries.

I don't think the NFL has as much to fear as do the other owners, and Stan himself. Like I said before, if he took it to court and sued on sherman anti trust, he'd win the battle, but could lose the war if congress wanted to remove their status. That's why this has to be handled with kid gloves, especially publicly.

None of us know if Stan would sue if told no. Hell, we don't even know for sure that he has any designs on moving the team. Almost all of this is from people outside the organization saying what they think he'll do. The concept that he wouldn't challenge the NFL if they said no was put forth by people projecting based on their "experience" in dealing with Stan. My guess is that these people have actually had very little experience with Stan and have never discussed anything remotely similar to this situation.

Agreed - which is one thing I like to point out. Out of 3 the teams, Stan is the only owner who has never said he is moving the team..

Except I believe a lot of this more media driven then anything - nothing sells media clicks like saying an owner is gonna take on the NFL.

I still don't get where the 2010 decision strengthens the position of the NFL. If the ruling stated that each team is a separate business, how does the NFL then stand on the ground that it can dictate a team's business decisions outside of agreements it, in of itself makes? How is Jerruh selling his own merchandise for example? Why did the NFL back away from and then grant an extension to Stan's cross ownership violation? Because they made the exemption for Huezenga (sp?) and Allen (the NFL changed the rules to limit it to only current NFL markets so that Allen could buy the Seahawks)?

Never said it strengthened their position - I was pointing out the change in how it was viewed. As to you other questions, I don't know anything about what you're referencing.

For Stan's ownership - they gave him a break when he bought the team. As far as to why they gave him another extension - my guess is that the process of getting him to transfer ownership of his son is a lot easier than forcing him to sell and going through the process of getting a new owner (and his vote going through approval). It's also way more diplomatic and better for relations going forward. Don't want bad blood with a business partner (which is what all 32 owners really are)

The NFL just has a history of backing away from its bylaws in order to avoid litigation. It also has a history of doing what is best for the pockets of the owners. I really don't see them standing firm if Stan really wants to move the team.

Curious to know what Stan would do if he was told no - but the idea of winning in court based on the Sherman Anti-trust act is a short term victory with potentially a huge long term loss. Again, it's not a guarantee or anything - but the NFL and owners have to be extremely careful here.

St Louis has the ball firmly in its court IMO. They can step up and keep the Rams if they continue to make very rapid progress. But in all honesty, I worry that they just pissed Stan off with the low ball offer in arbitration and then not really stepping up after they lost.

Agreed

 

[iced]

So then wouldn't rich owners be an an advantage? They can buy the better players, and thus get the better contracts? The Seahawks, Rams having the two richest owners, (Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Dallas the next guys behind them) would be able to spend spend spend, and get top players. Plus being in LA would help Stan even more so. You'd think the other owners would be more worried about that than the rich guys, which would work in his favor.

Not really.. 32 businesses set at top dollar would yield higher dividends than 32 businesses competing with each other, especially if there's pricing competitions

I don't think he really wants to take away all that antitrust stuff or anything, I'm just trying to figure out how it all works.

Lol don't... I can tell my old man is growing tired of my questions lol. And yea, this stuff is confusing. Sometimes I swear he forgets he's talking to me and he thinks he's back teaching one of his law students. Can i get a translation please? lol you'd think growing up as a Lawyer's son I'd be more used to it by now...

his help definitely paid off though with IT Law (requirement for my major)

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Ryan Silvey the Mo guy just tweeted this...

@RyanSilvey: By a vote of 31-0 the Senate has agreed that bonding projects should require a vote and sent my language on SB330 to the House. #MOLeg

@RyanSilvey: I appreciate my colleagues' unanimous support for a vote on bonding projects. This issue is not partisan or regional. Everyone agrees #MOLeg

 

[bluecoconuts]

Lol don't... I can tell my old man is growing tired of my questions lol. And yea, this stuff is confusing. Sometimes I swear he forgets he's talking to me and he thinks he's back teaching one of his law students. Can i get a translation please? lol you'd think growing up as a Lawyer's son I'd be more used to it by now...

his help definitely paid off though with IT Law (requirement for my major)

Yeah, I was talking to the law students at school about it, they were trying to explain things and I couldn't grasp it. Then they asked me physics questions and they got the same look that I had when they spoke. We might as well have been speaking two completely different languages.

It's all very complex, I just want more pretty stadium pictures dammit.

 

[RamFan503]

I wasn't saying the Salary Cap was an exemption (nor am I sure that the salary cap is an actual legal exemption). What I was saying is if the lost the exemption status, the salary cap would be gone.

I could be wrong but I believe the only way they control what a given team can offer players is through an exemption. So while the salary cap itself is maybe not an exemption, the mechanism for allowing it has to be. Therefore, I highly doubt they could strip that exemption only from the NFL.

This is not what I am being told.

I think you could look at the exemption as a conditional use of sorts in that it can be stripped if the regulations behind the use are violated. Can it be taken away? Certainly. Is there enough motivation within Congress to do so? I highly doubt it. Would Stan moving the team trigger it? IMO - very doubtful.

Hehe, there's a lot long with congress that we could talk about - including their own salaries.

Preaching to the choir my man. We could go on and on about that. Some of the dumbest "successful" people I have ever met were politicians. And the entitlement mentality runs deep with most of them.

I don't think the NFL has as much to fear as do the other owners, and Stan himself. Like I said before, if he took it to court and sued on sherman anti trust, he'd win the battle, but could lose the war if congress wanted to remove their status. That's why this has to be handled with kid gloves, especially publicly.

You may be correct but I doubt they would do anything with the status over this. Also, Stan is apparently very well connected politically. I think he will find back channels to sooth over any chest puffers.

Never said it strengthened their position - I was pointing out the change in how it was viewed. As to you other questions, I don't know anything about what you're referencing.

For Stan's ownership - they gave him a break when he bought the team. As far as to why they gave him another extension - my guess is that the process of getting him to transfer ownership of his son is a lot easier than forcing him to sell and going through the process of getting a new owner (and his vote going through approval). It's also way more diplomatic and better for relations going forward. Don't want bad blood with a business partner (which is what all 32 owners really are)

The cross ownership rules have morphed maybe more than any other single area. Originally, it was to prevent an owner from owning a team in a competing football league. Then the league changed it to be that an owner of an NFL team or a close relative could not own another professional sports franchise - period. They then lost a court battle that ruled the cross ownership rule was illegal. Oddly, the league not only kept the rule in place but added the part about in another city to allow Huizenga to own both the Dolphins and Marlins. Then in the last slight change, they developed the part about another current NFL city to allow Paul Allen to buy the Seahawks while still owning the Trailblazers.

I just find this to be another example of the NFL having bylaws it can't really enforce if sued. It lost the case in 1982 and then just proceeded as normal without changing the rule for several years. They lost the last time they were challenged and it was based on Sherman Anti-trust laws.

Curious to know what Stan would do if he was told no - but the idea of winning in court based on the Sherman Anti-trust act is a short term victory with potentially a huge long term loss. Again, it's not a guarantee or anything - but the NFL and owners have to be extremely careful here.

I agree that going to court would be a last ditch effort if it goes there. But knowing that it could be potentially bad for the league itself is just more reason not to block a move if most of the conditions have been met. If it all ends up hinging on the stadium issue, and Stan centers his argument on the Dome agreement and how that all went, do you think the NFL not only votes to block the move but then stands their ground if Stan threatens to sue? I don't.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that if Stan keeps the Rams in St Louis it is because he wants to keep the team there - not because he is forced to. And if he does stay, I think Rams fans should really appreciate his playing hardball even if it was extremely difficult to stand by as the process takes its ugly turns.

 

[Goose]

Ryan Silvey the Mo guy just tweeted this...

@RyanSilvey: By a vote of 31-0 the Senate has agreed that bonding projects should require a vote and sent my language on SB330 to the House. #MOLeg

@RyanSilvey: I appreciate my colleagues' unanimous support for a vote on bonding projects. This issue is not partisan or regional. Everyone agrees #MOLeg

Please don't read into this to much. I understand this is another step in the process but it still needs to go through the house and it can be veto'd.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Please don't read into this to much. I understand this is another step in the process but it still needs to go through the house and it can be veto'd.

What's the threshold to override a veto in Missouri?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Missouri Senate: Nixon can't extend bonds for NFL stadium without vote
JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon could not extend bonds for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis without a vote under a measure passed Thursday by the Missouri Senate.

The measure would allow the state to use $200 million worth of bonds for repair and maintenance projects, as well as some new construction. The bill does not establish the projects to benefit from this money, it simply allows for the bonds to be used in this way.

In a law signed last year, that $200 million initially was intended for the construction of a new Fulton State Hospital as part of a $600 million authorization for the Board of Public Buildings to issue bonds for repair and maintenance projects on state and public higher education facilities. The facility for the most severely mentally ill later was financed differently.

Advertisement: Story Continues Below


But the measure, which passed with a vote of 26-5, also bars the executive branch from extending bonds without a vote of the Legislature or the people — a provision added after the Nixon administration said it didn't need one to act on bonds for the proposed new riverfront stadium.

Earlier this year, Doug Nelson, Office of Administration commissioner, said a law passed more than 20 years ago allows the Nixon administration to issue such bonds. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease to finance or develop a convention or sports facility.

“This is not an indication of what we’re going to do,” Nelson said in January. “This is an indication that we believe we have that authority.”

Rams owner Stan Kroenke has announced plans to build an 80,000-seat National Football League stadium and 6,000-seat performance venue in the Los Angeles area.

The Rams were bound by the team’s lease at the Edward Jones Dome to stay in St. Louis until 2025. But local officials failed to keep the dome in the “top tier” of NFL stadiums, as required by the lease, allowing the Rams to go year-to-year. The team has committed to staying in St. Louis through next season, but not any longer.

In Janary, a two-member task force appointed by Nixon revealed plans for a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis, in an effort to keep the NFL in the city. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with at least $350 million paid by taxpayers.
To cover much of that public cost, the task force — Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock — suggested “extending” payments that now go to pay off Dome debt.

Of that, the state pays about $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep.

The measure now moves to the House.

The bill is Senate Bill 330.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Please don't read into this to much. I understand this is another step in the process but it still needs to go through the house and it can be veto'd.

I'm not I'm just bored at work and I'm trying to post important articles and info. No one knows what the end game will be and I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm pro LA so usually I'm going to post things that are pro LA lol sorry. But I think Nixon could veto this no?

 

[iced]

I could be wrong but I believe the only way they control what a given team can offer players is through an exemption. So while the salary cap itself is maybe not an exemption, the mechanism for allowing it has to be. Therefore, I highly doubt they could strip that exemption only from the NFL.

ahh k think I had misinterpreted you before - this I agree.

I think you could look at the exemption as a conditional use of sorts in that it can be stripped if the regulations behind the use are violated. Can it be taken away? Certainly. Is there enough motivation within Congress to do so? I highly doubt it. Would Stan moving the team trigger it? IMO - very doubtful.

The move wouldn't - suing based on that could trigger it. As he said before, "you don't wanna wave a red flag at the bull (congress)"

The cross ownership rules have morphed maybe more than any other single area. Originally, it was to prevent an owner from owning a team in a competing football league. Then the league changed it to be that an owner of an NFL team or a close relative could not own another professional sports franchise - period. They then lost a court battle that ruled the cross ownership rule was illegal. Oddly, the league not only kept the rule in place but added the part about in another city to allow Huizenga to own both the Dolphins and Marlins. Then in the last slight change, they developed the part about another current NFL city to allow Paul Allen to buy the Seahawks while still owning the Trailblazers.

I just find this to be another example of the NFL having bylaws it can't really enforce if sued. It lost the case in 1982 and then just proceeded as normal without changing the rule for several years. They lost the last time they were challenged and it was based on Sherman Anti-trust laws.

Interesting.

But the Seahawks in '95 also suddenly moved back after the Commissioner threatened a "fine." So obviously the NFL has some form of legal recourse that the Seahawks back then chose to not challenge in litigation. They packed back up from Anaheim and went back north.

I agree that going to court would be a last ditch effort if it goes there. But knowing that it could be potentially bad for the league itself is just more reason not to block a move if most of the conditions have been met. If it all ends up hinging on the stadium issue, and Stan centers his argument on the Dome agreement and how that all went, do you think the NFL not only votes to block the move but then stands their ground if Stan threatens to sue? I don't.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that if Stan keeps the Rams in St Louis it is because he wants to keep the team there - not because he is forced to. And if he does stay, I think Rams fans should really appreciate his playing hardball even if it was extremely difficult to stand by as the process takes its ugly turns.

Going to court is always an assumption that Kroenke wouldn't listen to the stadium committee..

What I think is more likely is that the NFL offers Kroenke something by staying in St.Louis - or "Sweetening the pot" ... It's one possible angle I think has some fruition. My old man mentioned one thing that could probably do was offer him a higher share of the tv market revenue. I'm sure there's a number of things they could offer.

one thing I find interesting though is knowing all of this - i wonder why Rooney thinks they can legally block a team from moving that doesn't follow the process (And I would guess this a result of the craziness of 90's)

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

"There are still cards to be played," Rooney told The Times in his first public comments since Kroenke unveiled his vision for a state-of-the-art stadium on the Hollywood Park site. "There's still a process that has to work its way out, and we don't know what the outcome's going to be yet. That's why we have league committees and approval processes."

Rooney's words were measured but his message was clear that the NFL is going to make the decisions on stadiums and relocation.

"I think we're comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn't go through the process," Rooney said.

 

[RamFan503]

"you don't wanna wave a red flag at the bull (congress)"

How about a bloated cow?

 

[mr.stlouis]

All I know is LA is leverage to get an STL stadium built. Clearly there nobody is lining up to foot the bill just yet, but this will get done. There is plenty of time. A great football season will definately seal the deal.

 

[RamFan503]

But the Seahawks in '95 also suddenly moved back after the Commissioner threatened a "fine." So obviously the NFL has some form of legal recourse that the Seahawks back then chose to not challenge in litigation. They packed back up from Anaheim and went back north.

That was when Ken Behring and Ken Somethingorother (Ken squared) owned the team and they were in bankruptcy at the time. They couldn't afford to fight anything much less the NFL. They were already involved in a nasty lawsuit they weren't going to win. Selling the team to Paul Allen was pretty much a fire sale to bail them out. Paul Allen never had any plans to move them south and in fact had already had assurances that if he bought the team, a stadium would be soon coming. So no one really challenged the NFL in that case.

Going to court is always an assumption that Kroenke wouldn't listen to the stadium committee..

What I think is more likely is that the NFL offers Kroenke something by staying in St.Louis - or "Sweetening the pot" ... It's one possible angle I think has some fruition. My old man mentioned one thing that could probably do was offer him a higher share of the tv market revenue. I'm sure there's a number of things they could offer.

one thing I find interesting though is knowing all of this - i wonder why Rooney thinks they can legally block a team from moving that doesn't follow the process (And I would guess this a result of the craziness of 90's)

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

I think Kroenke listens to the stadium committee only so much as it makes sense to him. If he feels they are asking him to settle for an inferior product, I don't think he just accepts it. If he likes what he sees, he will still likely push to the last moment and then stay in St Louis. I really think he does have that kind of leverage.

It would take the owners approving of it before the NFL could award Stan any kind of increased TV revenues for staying put. If they did that, I can almost guarantee you they would have to do the same for Spanos and Davis especially since it is actually looking like neither one of them is moving out of their respective markets either. I'm sure they would offer to have the cross ownership rule go away but what is that really worth?

As far as Rooney goes - what do you expect him to say? His committee is completely powerless? Jerruh - as much as I can't stand the dude - is probably being more realistic. After all, he has successfully thumbed his nose at the finance committee - the most powerful committee in the NFL. He was sued by the NFL when he signed outside agreements with several companies and also started producing his own merchandise. Jerruh got the case dismissed and then turned right around and sued the NFL for antitrust violations. What happened? The NFL settled.

 

[dbrooks25]

All I know is LA is leverage to get an STL stadium built. Clearly there nobody is lining up to foot the bill just yet, but this will get done. There is plenty of time. A great football season will definately seal the deal.

Yeah, I'm starting to get back on board with this thinking. The financing part will get done one way or another.