New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

The money is there, only if it doesn't go to a vote.

It could still pass with a vote, especially if it's the city who is voting. If the entire state is helping with the funding (which I believe it is) then they would likely need to be included in said vote, which might make it harder. I do wonder if the argument can be made that because they're taking the county out of it, extending the bonds isn't really happening, because they're changing it.

Either way, I'm starting to think it should go to a vote, because it certainly seems that there is enough resistance that bypassing a vote is wrong. It'd be one thing if there was just overwhelming support, but I'm not seeing it thus far. That could be due to the fact it's wider than just the city though.

Asking the state to pay for a city building is bullshit in my opinion, I'd be pissed if my tax dollars went to fund Levi's stadium, especially if I didn't even get a say on the matter.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

It could still pass with a vote, especially if it's the city who is voting. If the entire state is helping with the funding (which I believe it is) then they would likely need to be included in said vote, which might make it harder. I do wonder if the argument can be made that because they're taking the county out of it, extending the bonds isn't really happening, because they're changing it.

Either way, I'm starting to think it should go to a vote, because it certainly seems that there is enough resistance that bypassing a vote is wrong. It'd be one thing if there was just overwhelming support, but I'm not seeing it thus far. That could be due to the fact it's wider than just the city though.

Asking the state to pay for a city building is bullcrap in my opinion, I'd be pissed if my tax dollars went to fund Levi's stadium, especially if I didn't even get a say on the matter.

A vote could happen and it has a chance to pass but Peacock says they can't rely on a vote Bc of timeline the NFL has set.

 

[ChrisW]

Either way, I'm starting to think it should go to a vote, because it certainly seems that there is enough resistance that bypassing a vote is wrong. It'd be one thing if there was just overwhelming support, but I'm not seeing it thus far. That could be due to the fact it's wider than just the city though.

They are doing the right thing, vote or not.

Taking it to the courts to attain legal clarification is the same thing as a vote, essentially. If the courts say no vote is needed, then the democratic process has been appeased.

 

[bluecoconuts]

A vote could happen and it has a chance to pass but Peacock says they can't rely on a vote Bc of timeline the NFL has set.

Honestly I think they're more worried about the support than the timeline. Even if it passed, if it didn't pass by much, the NFL may say its not good enough, just gives them an excuse.

I don't think any city will have things figured out in time to safely keep their team. Pushing up the date was likely a calculated move to ensure this, thus giving them the most options to select the best one. The push for each current market is hedging their bets in some ways. If Inglewood or Carson falls through, they have backup plans. The NFL is also paying extra attention to St Louis as it can help regardless of what happens, there's a city that can give whichever team that doesn't end up in LA a new stadium if they want.

The NFL can select the best LA project for them, and no team is left in the cold, unless they choose to stay in their current stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They are doing the right thing, vote or not.

Taking it to the courts to attain legal clarification is the same thing as a vote, essentially. If the courts say no vote is needed, then the democratic process has been appeased.

Not really, the vote is a bit of a farse. They're suing themselves and picking their friend to be the judge. So there's going to be an argument for why its okay, and the argument for why its not won't exist because the "defense" wants it.

Naturally both sides will ensure that the jury (if there is one, and not just a judge, who again is picked by them) is all pro stadium people as well.

If there was a court case to determine it the KKK was racist, and both the prosecution and defense were Klan members, the judge was a Klan member, and the jury were all Klan members, would you take the not racist verdict because the democratic process was appeased? Of course not.

 

[ChrisW]

Not really, the vote is a bit of a farse. They're suing themselves and picking their friend to be the judge. So there's going to be an argument for why its okay, and the argument for why its not won't exist because the "defense" wants it.

Naturally both sides will ensure that the jury (if there is one, and not just a judge, who again is picked by them) is all pro stadium people as well.

If there was a court case to determine it the KKK was racist, and both the prosecution and defense were Klan members, the judge was a Klan member, and the jury were all Klan members, would you take the not racist verdict because the democratic process was appeased? Of course not.

You get what you vote for. The public may not get a direct vote in all of this. But they are the ones who put the people in charge.

I don't think there will be a jury in this. I'm pretty sure it's just a judge reviewing the law and determining what they need to do going forward.

 

[RamFan503]

booze + conversing w/ the gf while trying to type doesn't always work well lol

I meant they negotiated as 1 company... Good way to think of the NFL is 1 business with 32 board members and a puppett (Goodell)

Yeah... I know what you mean on the first part. I just don't exactly agree on the second. I realize they negotiate contracts as one entity - much like an association or maybe more like a union. But when the rubber meets the road, each team is a separate business and the NFL is hard pressed to enforce its bylaws when one of these separate businesses doesn't want to abide by a bylaw that it doesn't like.

 

[iced]

Yeah... I know what you mean on the first part. I just don't exactly agree on the second. I realize they negotiate contracts as one entity - much like an association or maybe more like a union. But when the rubber meets the road, each team is a separate business and the NFL is hard pressed to enforce its bylaws when one of these separate businesses doesn't want to abide by a bylaw that it doesn't like.

They're together and separate on different levels - but when you're start talking about AT laws, they're linked as one because they negotiate as one. When you're talking about moving markets and negotiating contracts, they're one... when congress and senators talk about removing Anti Trust agreements if they didn't comply with blackouts, they're acting in unison as one.

And FYI, when you cited Merchandising as an example -

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected the National Football League's request for broad antitrust law protection Monday, saying that it must be considered 32 separate teams -- not one big business -- when selling branded items like jerseys and caps.

"Although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned," said the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a unanimous court.

The high court reversed a lower court ruling throwing out an antitrust suit brought against the league by one of its former hat makers, who was upset that it lost its contract for making official NFL hats to Reebok International Ltd.

American Needle Inc. sued, claiming the league violated antitrust law because all 32 teams worked together to freeze it out of the NFL-licensed hatmaking business and gave Reebok an exclusive 10-year license.

The company lost and appealed to the Supreme Court, but the NFL did as well, hoping to get broader protection from antitrust lawsuits.

In the smaller world of Merchandising, they probably especially are now "32 individuals".. but when you're talking bigger picture and bigger revenue (TV Market share was twice as much as Merchandising at $200 mill), they act one as because they negotiate as one. They get more money from TV Contracts and Radios.. But most importantly when we're discussing moving teams and operating in different markets - they're going to fall under as one entity because they negotiate as one. That's what the Anti-trust agreements allow them to do - if they didn't have exemptions, then I'd agree with you. But that status changes things everything

 

[Goose]

NFL pushing Oakland for progress on Raiders stadium
By Matthew Artz

martz@bayareanewsgroup.com

POSTED: 04/16/2015 06:13:18 AM PDT1 COMMENT| UPDATED: 4 DAYS AGO

OAKLAND -- Still unconvinced about a multibillion dollar plan to keep the Raiders in Oakland, the NFL's stadium czar was in the East Bay Wednesday pressing team executives and local officials for signs of progress.

The visit from NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, who is overseeing the league's anticipated return to Los Angeles, comes as Oakland and Alameda County have begun working in tandem with a private developer to keep the football team from moving south once again.

Grubman, who scolded city leaders for their inaction during his last East Bay visit several months ago, continued to apply pressure earlier this week during a visit to San Diego, which is fighting to keep its team.

Speaking on 1090-AM in San Diego, Grubman said that of the three cities at risk of losing their teams to Los Angeles, only St. Louis had produced a clear financing plan for a new stadium.

In perhaps a bigger blow to Oakland's effort to keep the Raiders, Grubman told members of San Diego's stadium committee that the NFL did not want stadium financing to be dependent upon additional development surrounding the facility "because it will take far too long to get it done, and bringing in a developer would just mean another mouth to feed," according to UT San Diego.

Pairing a privately-financed $1 billion stadium with thousands of new homes, a hotel, shopping center and office complex is at the heart of Coliseum City -- Oakland's ambitious and often-criticized proposal for keeping the Raiders.

The NFL's aversion to tying stadium development to ancillary projects stems from its desire for the team to have ultimate control over any stadium development, said Robert Boland, a professor of sports economics at New York University.

However, Boland said the NFL's concerns over Coliseum City could dissipate if Raiders owner Mark Davis fully embraces it. "If Mark Davis and the Raiders are happy in Oakland, the NFL will be happy," he said. Davis has said that he wants to stay in Oakland and is open to Coliseum City, but has not yet committed to the project.

Grubman was not available for comment Wednesday after attending the meeting at Raiders headquarters in Alameda.

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty called the meeting productive, but said Grubman still needed convincing that progress was being made.

"He is going to continue to light a fire under us," Haggerty said. "The city and county are working together to move this along quickly. We understand the timeline."

The Raiders, San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Rams are all in play for moving to the Los Angeles area in temporary facilities as early as next year. The Raiders and Chargers are working on a stadium plan in the city of Carson, while continuing to seek a new facility in their home markets. The Rams are further ahead on a proposed football stadium in Inglewood.

Since the Raiders announced their interest in Carson, Oakland and Alameda County have begun discussions with their development partner, San Diego businessman Floyd Kephart, to advance Coliseum City, which would be built on the 120-acre Coliseum complex in East Oakland that they jointly own.

Numerous hurdles remain, however, including lining up private investors and figuring out how to publicly fund needed infrastructure improvements at the site that could top $100 million.

Haggerty said that Kephart, who was also at Wednesday's meeting, was working on putting together the framework of a deal within the next few weeks that could potentially work for both the Raiders and taxpayers. Kephart is required to show progress on several fronts by June 21.

Haggerty said he has tried to quell the league's concerns about Coliseum City being about far more than a new stadium for the Raiders.

"I think this is more than just an excellent opportunity for the NFL to be involved in the revitalization of a stadium," he said. "It an opportunity for the NFL to help change the face of an entire city."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/tim-kawakami/ci_27922904/nfl-stadium-czar-met-oakland-officials

 

[bluecoconuts]

You get what you vote for. The public may not get a direct vote in all of this. But they are the ones who put the people in charge.

I don't think there will be a jury in this. I'm pretty sure it's just a judge reviewing the law and determining what they need to do going forward.

Sure, but I wouldn't argue its the right thing to do, given there seems to be a decent amount of resistance. If there wasn't then sure, but it seems there is.

 

[ChrisW]

Sure, but I wouldn't argue its the right thing to do, given there seems to be a decent amount of resistance. If there wasn't then sure, but it seems there is.

Push back or not, I think people are looking at this the wrong way. It should have been dubbed "legal clarification" from the beginning and not a lawsuit. That makes it look like they are suing the city to avoid the vote, which isn't what's happening at all. (well it is, but the semantics puts the wrong idea in people's heads.)

 

[RamFan503]

They're together and separate on different levels - but when you're start talking about AT laws, they're linked as one because they negotiate as one. When you're talking about moving markets and negotiating contracts, they're one... when congress and senators talk about removing Anti Trust agreements if they didn't comply with blackouts, they're acting in unison as one.

And FYI, when you cited Merchandising as an example -

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509





In the smaller world of Merchandising, they probably especially are now "32 individuals".. but when you're talking bigger picture and bigger revenue (TV Market share was twice as much as Merchandising at $200 mill), they act one as because they negotiate as one. They get more money from TV Contracts and Radios.. But most importantly when we're discussing moving teams and operating in different markets - they're going to fall under as one entity because they negotiate as one. That's what the Anti-trust agreements allow them to do - if they didn't have exemptions, then I'd agree with you. But that status changes things everything

Ask your dad if the SC would have ruled on anything else but the question placed before them. It was specifically about merchandising so they answered it in kind. If it had been about TV broadcasts, they would have answered it in kind. The ruling itself is telling. Not the particular plaintiff.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Push back or not, I think people are looking at this the wrong way. It should have been dubbed "legal clarification" from the beginning and not a lawsuit. That makes it look like they are suing the city to avoid the vote, which isn't what's happening at all. (well it is, but the semantics puts the wrong idea in people's heads.)

Either way, it circumnavigates the democratic process seemingly against the will of a significant group. Its one thing to avoid the vote because the majority of people support something, so why waste time and money doing it, its another to do so, in order to avoid the vote not going well.

 

[blue4]

[QUOTE="ChrisW, post: 544749, member:

I really just want to know what has pissed off everyone at the PD so badly that all they want to do is write off the Rams as goners. Seriously, someone had to do something major to pee pee off this write, Bernie, and well JT (but I think we know his rage stems from the Bradford trade.)[/QUOTE]

McClellan has always written articles with this tone regarding sports teams. He is also from Chicago and is not even a Cardinals fan, but a Cubs fan.

As for the PD, well they campaigned for every sports team to get what they want for years. They supplied the easiest, kid gloves treatment for the coaches and athletes in the entire NFL IMO. So, they probably feel like the rest of St Louis. Pissed off.

 

[RamFan503]

Push back or not, I think people are looking at this the wrong way. It should have been dubbed "legal clarification" from the beginning and not a lawsuit. That makes it look like they are suing the city to avoid the vote, which isn't what's happening at all. (well it is, but the semantics puts the wrong idea in people's heads.)

That's a very good point. And I think they really should push that spin.

I don't like the result though. The result - if they are successful - WILL be that what the voters intended and voted for will be overturned due to technicality and not because it was unclear what the voters intended. I see it all the time and it is (to be blunt) fucked up. The will of the people is rejected through technicality and though it is really up to the elected officials to see that the will of the voters is carried out, they instead use technicalities to do away with voter passed initiatives that reign in their power to spend or force unpopular regulations.

In Oregon we had a couple initiatives passed overwhelmingly by the voters. The initiatives were challenged based on multiple subjects (one of the angles being used by the stadium group) and thrown out. Fortunately, on at least those two initiatives, the politicians realized that the entire state was behind the issue so they implemented the laws anyway. Unfortunately, they did it in statute so they could change it and tweak it later on as they saw fit (which they have).

In the end, it is all political dishonesty to me. And I think people only defend it if it works in their favor.

 

[iced]

Ask your dad if the SC would have ruled on anything else but the question placed before them. It was specifically about merchandising so they answered it in kind. If it had been about TV broadcasts, they would have answered it in kind. The ruling itself is telling. Not the particular plaintiff.

That's what I was explaining - his point of view and his opinion on moving, AT, and TV contracts, with the ability to negotiate as one because of the AT exemptions. And what you should be noticing in that lawsuit is that they were trying to get a broad exemption for all of AT. IMO, their ruling on the broad exemptions speaks more to their status as a business than Reebok's lost law suit.

Speaking on 1090-AM in San Diego, Grubman said that of the three cities at risk of losing their teams to Los Angeles, only St. Louis had produced a clear financing plan for a new stadium.

Awesome.

 

[blue4]

In the end, it is all political dishonesty to me. And I think people only defend it if it works in their favor.

Unfortunately you have described 99% of everything in American politics.

 

[Hacksaw]

Speaking on 1090-AM in San Diego, Grubman said that of the three cities at risk of losing their teams to Los Angeles, only St. Louis had produced a clear financing plan for a new stadium.

Awesome.

Sounds encouraging. Does the plan have actual committed dollars or just the plan? And what about Stan's half?

SD has been talking about it taking a year to get it's stuff together and Oakland is the definition of floundering. Sounds like whatever the league actually prefers it won't have to consider those 2 communities as far as an alternative option. This greatly helps the StL effort IMO.

 

[RamFan503]

Unfortunately you have described 99% of everything in American politics.

Unfortunately - you are right.

A lot of the time people "like" the tone of the post or they're appreciating a conciliatory post or something like that. It can be a way of ending a extended exchange with no hard feelings even though you still disagree. It can also be an appreciation of a well reasoned argument despite the fact you still disagree.

It's funny because I've done that on a lot of posts in this thread.

Dead on balls accurate here ^.

 

[RamFan503]

That's what I was explaining - his point of view and his opinion on moving, AT, and TV contracts, with the ability to negotiate as one because of the AT exemptions. And what you should be noticing in that lawsuit is that they were trying to get a broad exemption for all of AT. IMO, their ruling on the broad exemptions speaks more to their status as a business than Reebok's lost law suit.

Well - it wasn't Reebok's lawsuit IIRR but that doesn't really matter. And it was the NFL itself trying to get the courts to answer in a way that gave them the broad exemption. Why is that? The reason is that they WANT to be looked at as one business for the purpose of being able to enforce their bylaws. That is why the ruling is so important. They lost and the judges ruled that the NFL remained a group of 32 independent businesses operating as a league. Certainly the league has exemptions from certain Anti-Trust laws. But what they were going after was essentially a ruling that said they were one single entity. Why? Probably to be able to actually enforce their bylaws and keep Jeruh from pulling his stunt and to have actual power over the teams when it comes to markets.