"Last Monday, Rams owner Stan Kroenke broke years of silence regarding the future of his franchise by saying that he’ll be building a stadium in L.A. Which means he’ll be moving the Rams there. If he can."
LMFAO
LMFAO
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
dbrooks25
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,119
I was about to post this but you beat me to it. Very interesting, indeed. This thing is far from over if SK's plan is to make the move.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,328
- Name
- Mark
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
He writes like a 13 year old drama queen trying to generate hits on her blog.
Campaign manager, salesman, or little miss pony debate club president are all good career options here. Journalist, is definitely not one of them.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 11,338
- Name
- Scott
I doubt the NFL is going to wait another decade for Spanos to get off his ass and get something done.
If Spanos wants LA then he should go to LA.
Two hours away? The Chargers make more sense than any other team. It's barely a relocation.
Hell, I wouldn't even consider it a relocation. It's more of a daily work commute.
JonRam99
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2014
- Messages
- 2,332
- Name
- Jonathan
LA hates the Chargers. It would be like the Chiefs moving to St. Louis... or vice versa. I don't think they'd generate nearly enough revenue as a Ram's relocation there would. The Rams still have an avid fan base there, apparently, judging from all the fans from LA who made the 2 hr commute for the San Diego game this season.
woofwoofmo
65 Toss Power Trap
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 598
I still have my "I Survived The Road To Hana" t-shirt.
Me too!!
It's a great drive and well worth going to the end to see Charles Lindberg's gravesite.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Leaning on the by-laws to keep the Rams seems foolish to me. Why would you count on the NFL not siding with the owner?
Yeah, because all the big name owners who have been pushing for an LA team will say no just so the Chargers owner can sit around and continue to fail to gain leverage with the city being open.
Fat chance, who did Florio talk to, the towel boy?
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
Because in the very first statement the NFL made after Kroenke's announcement, they leaned on the by-laws.
“No team has applied for relocation and there will be no team relocations for the 2015 season,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said via email. “We are committed to working towards having franchises that are strong and successful in their existing markets. Any decision on relocation in 2016 or later is subject to approval by the 32 clubs. An affirmative vote by 24 of 32 clubs (three-fourths) is required.”
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
Sure, just like a number of Los Angeles fans left when the Rams did.. and may or may not come back if the Rams do... many seem to have converted to 49ers fans...
...which, okay, I know you're mad, but that's just crazy.
I'm sure if the Rams leave St. Louis, there's going to be a few St. Louisans venting their spleen on the team... and it would be the one time I'd absolutely understand it.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
EXACTLY this.
The NFL is going to do what the NFL owners want them to do. And if they see more money in allowing the move than not, it's going to happen.
And frankly, if Stan does go rogue, opt out of his St. Louis lease and moves the team on the spot, the league can't force them back into St. Louis.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
What? Where did you get this idea from? That's like loving the taste of ice cream and then deciding to eat dog crap instead. :fighting:
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
Because of how profits are split up in the NFL, how much more money is actually in LA? Not a whole lot.
If Stan goes rogue, he'll be stripped of ownership rights. This move would put the NFL directly in the path of losing their anti-trust status, and would also open the door to a possible modern day carousel of team moves.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
No, he's not going to be stripped of ownership rights. That's just plain silly. He might lose revenue for a few years, or have the L.A. venue disqualified from consideration as a Super Bowl site, but that's about it.
And where are people getting that strict following of the bylaws is necessary to keep the NFL from losing anti-trust status? If anything, allowing a franchise that wants to move the ability to move rather than unilaterally controlling their ability to do so would seem to be a non-monopolistic action.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
I'm pretty sure that having and following by-laws is an important piece of receiving that anti-trust status. With the other negative headlines they received this year, it's not a good time to be testing this.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
Actually, searching on that topic has revealed how pressure on the anti-trust law front might HELP the Rams move, including the fact that St. Louis actually sued the league themselves when the Rams moved there alleging that their rules made it too difficult to secure the Rams for any kind of reasonable price. But I certainly have not seen anyone outside this board even raising the issue of anti-trust laws hurting the team's ability to move.
But in any event, I'm pretty sure Stan has a plan figured out (and only Bleacher Report is stating that Stan's talked about going rogue and I don't consider them more credible than any random message board poster). And I'm sure he's accounted for the bylaws, either how to be in compliance with them to do what he wants, or how to get around them to do what he wants.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
Well in any event, there's no way around the owners vote. So that's the end all be all.
Also, it's worth noting that the relocation by-laws are in place to help keep the franchise in their existing market. So if Stan is trying to bend them to his will, it'll be hard.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Yeah, they have to say that. All they're doing is restating the rules that everybody already knows. St Louis can tell everyone that they just need 8 owners to vote no and then maybe the Rams will stay (assuming Stan wouldn't just move them anyway), but the problem is getting those 8 owners. Assuming that the big names like Jerry Jones, and Robert Kraft are going to side with Stan in the event of a move (given they both have said repeatedly they want a team in LA, you would expect them to vote "Yes"), as well as the NFC West, and several other teams who may want to get in on the market if it's open (Colts, Chiefs, Titans and possibly even Bears) who is going to vote no other than Alex Spanos? He's going to have one hell of a time convincing the other owners over the guys who do want a team in LA. And he's going to have to do a better job than "Well maybe I want to move there one day" or "Well I don't want a team there because it hurts my leverage!"
I don't count on the NFL owners voting no, because one, I have no faith in the NFL owners not siding with an owner, and two I don't see the other 7 votes necessary to block a move anyway. If Stan is well liked or not, it wont really matter, because there's other big guys pushing it, and above all else, money talks.
- Status