New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Hacksaw]

This one is from this year in the Business Journal. It's interesting but I wouldn't read much into it yet because even the best Dr gets sued from time to time. It maybe something the stadium critics use against the project.

Stadium task force member accused of fraud, negligence in prior development deal
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...k-force-member-accused-of-fraud.html?page=all

Can we find another legal road block for the Riverfront Stadium? this could be nothing but between senators / politicians infighting and a possible corrupt/negligent task force lawyer none of this should give the NFL that peaceful easy feeling..

 

[CoachO]

Here's Kroenke's solution to cross ownership. Anne Walton to buy the Rams.

http://m.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/05/10/daily6.html?ana=twt&r=full

Sports magnate Stan Kroenke -- owner of the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche and Pepsi Center -- asked the NFL last week to allow his wife to own the St. Louis Rams, sources said.

The move is seen as a way to address league complications that have developed from Kroenke's decision last month to trigger an option to buy the St. Louis National Football League club.

Because Kroenke owns the National Basketball Association's Nuggets and National Hockey League's Avalanche in Denver, he is precluded by the NFL’s cross-ownership policy from owning a football team outside Denver.

While media reports last month suggested Kroenke would move the Denver sports assets into his wife’s name or children’s names, what he instead proposed in person last week to the NFL finance committee at a meeting in New York City was that his wife, Ann Walton Kroenke, would buy the Rams, the sources said.

Ann Walton Kroenke is a daughter of the late Bud Walton, brother of Wal-Mart Stores founder Sam Walton.

It’s uncertain whether the Rams proposal would pass muster, the sources said, noting that it may depend on how the deal is structured. Kroenke did include other options last week, the sources said, but details of those proposals were not available.

A Kroenke spokesman declined to comment, as did the NFL.

This is a VERY OLD story, which somehow has resurfaced. If you read the article closely, it mentions how he was referencing his decision to excercise his option to buy the Rams LAST MONTH.

There is nothing to see here.

 

[iced]

Davis needs to figure out how to get at least a billion dollars for Carson to work, not including any relocation fees. If you somehow reward him the G4 loan (which if he gets it for Carson, he should for St Louis) then that's 800 million. Naming rights and PSL's aren't going to cover that. Then you factor in moving the team and relocations fees (relocation fees are likely far more for LA than St Louis).

So essentially if St Louis isn't affordable for the Raiders, then Carson most certainly not affordable.

Last I heard they had Goldman Sachs and other private investors - not sure how Davis needs to come up with that portion of it.

No matter how you slice it - there's no way in hell i see davis moving to st.louis, let alone affording it (which i doubt he would truly leave CA to begin with but that's another story). If he can't afford Oakland or Carson, forget St.Louis.

As to the Chargers getting the G4 Loan, they actually have legs stand on...well maybe not legs, but a step stool. G4 Loan says "Home Territory" , not home market. I'm sure SD is going to use their 25% ticket holder in LA argument - and that's not something you can say "Well if Chargers are eligible for it then so should oakland." Uhh no - Oakland doesn't have a ticket base in St.Louis let alone the gigantic geographical distance.

I can see the owners "Bending the g4 laws"if they wanted to, to help out 2 owners to get a stadium built for them to share - for all reasons i mentioned before, with the biggest ones simply that Davis and Spanos have been working on their stadium situations twice as long as Kroenke has been an owner, and you better believe they want their slice of the cake before Kroenke since they've been waiting in line for a decade plus

my opinion - "the home territory" (And yes it is in quotes in the g4) is their little loophole/wiggle room

 

[iced]

Its all good...I have said it before in this thread and still believe this, when you are trying to read tea leaves and determine who is going to get what, the safest bet is to assume the guy with the least cash available is the one that will take it on the chin.

Mark Davis is financially non-viable in the current NFL. Hell, Spanos is not too far behind him in that regard, but he is better liked by the other owners. Kroenke is not making himself popular with these moves and silence; but, in the end, he has the "jack" to force a positive resolution to this whole mess.

Start with the very basic proposition that Kroenke does not care - about the Rams team or players or staff, the fans, the other owners, nothing. His actions to date support this proposition unreservedly. To him, owning an NFL team in L.A. - ANY team - is the thing people are convinced that he wants. He certainly wants to develop the land in Inglewood. He also thinks that having more money - than the $6B+ he already has, as he nears 70 years old, and his life expectancy is less than a decade - is the most important thing in life...good for him, I am sure that his pyramid will be epic and they can stuff all his things in there with his rotting corpse soon enough.

From that simple set of propositions, everything else is relatively easy to envision to have the Raiders and Chargers in L.A. and the Rams in St. Louis. Davis is the long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs and he will be the loser in the end. Davis is going to be forced out. Initially, Inglewood will be denied. The Rams will be sold to local ownership, which will pick up the private investment portion of the Riverside stadium. After Kroenke sells the Rams, the NFL's other owners will facilitate the acquistion of the Raiders with a green light for Inglewood, the Carson partnership will crumble and the Chargers will be faced with three possibilities - 1) move ahead with Carson on their own, 2) accept a deal to join Kroenke's Raiders in Ingelwood or 3) stay in San Diego and accept the fact that they will be second fiddle in Southern California no matter what.

The best bet for the Chargers honestly is to stay in San Diego. There is enough animosity between SD and LA to fuel an increased rivalry with the Raiders (over and above the existing one) and the San Diego fans and city proper may be willing to make a long term deal that helps keep them viable regardless of what is going on 100 miles north in LA.

Oakland is the city that has shown the least interest in remaining an NFL city, followed closely by San Diego. Spanos will have options. Davis will not. Put the Raiders franchise in Kroenke's hands and in the city of LA and it will be wildly successful, resurrecting the image of the pillaging pirates of the AFL and Al Davis in the first L.A. stay. Put the Rams in a new stadium with local ownership and Peacock in place as a figurehead and the franchise will be secured for a generation or more in its adopted home. Put the Chargers in a new stadium in San Diego and the NFL gets what it wants - 3 new stadiums, including 2 that will be rotation stadia for the Super Bowl, and secure futures for 3 franchises with no one being forced into a subservient role as a sub-letting tenant of someone else's stadium.

The Rams to L.A. solves nothing. It did when the only team capable of going to L.A. was them. The issue now remains who has the clout and who does not. In this messed up country, money is speech and that means Kroenke has the megaphone, Spanos has a phone, and Davis is sitting around with two cans connected by a string.

I feel like we're in the same mouse trap but we're taking different routes to the cheese. For me it's simple:

I think they want the Rams to stay for multiple reasons:

-they don't want to deal with the potential backlash of a team alienating a market that's willing to spend a lot of Public money to build a stadium..and out of the 3 teams moving, the only team with a public funded stadium* (better believe other owners and cities are watching how the nfl treats this situation)

-That doesn't show "acting in good faith" as part of the relocation rules

-I can't imagine Spanos or Davis allowing Kroenke to essentially jump ahead of them in line to LA - especially with those owners actually working in good faith for 10+ years in their cities.. they've been working on their stadiums atleast twice as long as Kroenke has been an owner

-They've said it over and over again, they're going to do what's best for all 32... I see the other owners placating those two owners before 1 (whom of which has an offer on the table), which would be tapping into another teams market while abandoning one at the same time. While it's not their whole market, 1/4 of their season ticket sales (which may include PSL's) is dollars to owners, and that's all they care about.

-Musical cities is hard to imagine whats best for all 32, especially when talking about fan bases when it comes to just having a team in those existing markets (keeping rams in st.louis, chargers in socal, etc.)

-If the other owners see St.Louis offering a legit stadium that meets NFL standards, I think that's the biggest sticking point on whether he goes or not
Carson + St.Louis to me seems easier, Maximizes revenue by maintaining LA AND St.Louis markets (SF has bay area still, Chargers would help bring SD Market).

And if somehow if Kroenke were actually to get past the relocation guidelines (good faith, viable stadium on the table) and jump to the head of the line, the NFL would be leaving the St.Louis market, leaving Davis and Spanos to continue spending more years negotiating with their cities.. That's not maximizing revenue and kinda screwing the other owners. It's not like a bunch of billionaires are going to say no to money (reduce fees) nor foolishly spend it (help davis move). No one's gonna help Davis move, especially that family.

 

[RamFan503]

This one is from this year in the Business Journal. It's interesting but I wouldn't read much into it yet because even the best Dr gets sued from time to time. It maybe something the stadium critics use against the project.

Stadium task force member accused of fraud, negligence in prior development deal
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...k-force-member-accused-of-fraud.html?page=all

Is the stadium project supposed to be partly funded by TIF funding? If so, I can't see that being helpful. Maybe nothing in the grand scheme but it just can't help.

 

[ChrisW]

This is a VERY OLD story, which somehow has resurfaced. If you read the article closely, it mentions how the was referencing his decision to excercise his option to buy the Rams LAST MONTH.

There is nothing to see here.

Right. @The Ripper already showed me this. I looked at the date of May 10th and completely missed the year.

 

[Sum1]

Davis needs to figure out how to get at least a billion dollars for Carson to work, not including any relocation fees. If you somehow reward him the G4 loan (which if he gets it for Carson, he should for St Louis) then that's 800 million. Naming rights and PSL's aren't going to cover that. Then you factor in moving the team and relocations fees (relocation fees are likely far more for LA than St Louis).

So essentially if St Louis isn't affordable for the Raiders, then Carson most certainly not affordable.



I can't see Kroenke just giving up the Rams because he can't have LA, nor do I see some sort of group of local businessmen being able to take over, he would probably sell to a single billionaire or something like that. Plus the NFL simply forcing Davis out so Kroenke may take over the Raiders?

How do you turn down Inglewood and then give it the okay later? If you okay the stadium its good, you can't tell Kroenke "Okay you can have Inglewood, but not with your team, you need to go through the long process of selling your team, while we force out an owner just because, and then you have to buy that team, which this process will lose you tons of money."

I'm guessing both Kroenke and Davis teams up in court.

A lot of that seems rather unrealistic in my opinion.

What info out there exactly gives you the impression that Kroenke is in love with the Rams as opposed to any other team?

There is just as much (if not more) info outside of this forum that suggests there is a bigger Raiders fan base in LA than the Rams (and yes fellas, your arguments against such are duly noted, but at the expense of being redundant there is plenty out there to oppose your view)...

I don't have any reason to believe he isn't all Rams or nothing...but I have the exact amount of info to assume he doesn't care either. So I think the possibility of a franchise flip is still on the table and a valid talking point until otherwise factually proven otherwise.

 

[iced]

What info out there exactly gives you the impression that Kroenke is in love with the Rams as opposed to any other team?

There is just as much (if not more) info outside of this forum that suggests there is a bigger Raiders fan base in LA than the Rams (and yes fellas, your arguments against such are duly noted, but at the expense of being redundant there is plenty out there to oppose your view)...

I don't have any reason to believe he isn't all Rams or nothing...but I have the exact amount of info to assume he doesn't care either. So I think the possibility of a franchise flip is still on the table and a valid talking point until otherwise factually proven otherwise.

can't even wear your Rams or Raiders gear at a lot of restaurants for fear of "Gang colors"

 

[The Ripper]

I feel like we're in the same mouse trap but we're taking different routes to the cheese. For me it's simple:

-That doesn't show "acting in good faith" as part of the relocation rules

-I can't imagine Spanos or Davis allowing Kroenke to essentially jump ahead of them in line to LA - especially with those owners actually working in good faith for 10+ years in their cities.. they've been working on their stadiums atleast twice as long as Kroenke has been an owner.

Good faith is not just about the owner but the team. They can go back as far as they need to go. 1997 the CVC missing guaranteed payments to the Rams. 2005 and 2006 allowing the CVC extension on the top tier review. 2007 accepting the $ 30 million in repairs to the dome for revisions to the lease that brought about the arbitration process. Then the former owner not giving any guarantees about waiving the top tier requirement for 2015. The Rams can also make a case that this has gone on for over 10 years.

Whatever the outcome is, the facts will suit the decision by the NFL.

 

[iced]

Good faith is not just about the owner but the team. They can go back as far as they need to go. 1997 the CVC missing guaranteed payments to the Rams. 2005 and 2006 allowing the CVC extension on the top tier review. 2007 accepting the $ 30 million in repairs to the dome for revisions to the lease that brought about the arbitration process. Then the former owner not giving any guarantees about waiving the top tier requirement for 2015. The Rams can also make a case that this has gone on for over 10 years.

Whatever the outcome is, the facts will suit the decision by the NFL.

No, I don't think they meet their arguments

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf

A. Negotiations Prior to League Consideration

1. Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community. A club may not, however, grant exclusive negotiating rights to a community or potential stadium landlord other than one in its current home territory.

2. All clubs, at any time during their stadium negotiations, are free to seek the assistance of the League Office and the Stadium Committee, on either a formal or informal basis. If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations. Upon such a declaration, the League may elect to become directly involved in the negotiations.

Peacock's working with the taskforce and NFL doesn't give Kroenke any room to stand on when it comes to good faith, especially since we've already heard at the very least Goodell or Grubman address complaints about Kroenke not answering the phone

 

[RamFan503]

can't even wear your Rams or Raiders gear at a lot of restaurants for fear of "Gang colors"

Come on man. I think enough of us lived there to know this isn't true. I'll give you the Raiduh wear but that was NEVER an issue with Rams gear. I did have someone tell me I couldn't wear my black Lakers jacket into a nightclub once though.

 

[RamFan503]

What info out there exactly gives you the impression that Kroenke is in love with the Rams as opposed to any other team?

There is just as much (if not more) info outside of this forum that suggests there is a bigger Raiders fan base in LA than the Rams (and yes fellas, your arguments against such are duly noted, but at the expense of being redundant there is plenty out there to oppose your view)...

I don't have any reason to believe he isn't all Rams or nothing...but I have the exact amount of info to assume he doesn't care either. So I think the possibility of a franchise flip is still on the table and a valid talking point until otherwise factually proven otherwise.

As you said, we can show you the opposite of the bolded but ... whatever.

The reason I think Stan would have no interest in flipping teams is that it just wouldn't be anywhere near as easy nor as much of a straight across deal as some would want to say. I don't know if Stan has a mind set that favors the Rams over any other team but I would wager that there would be a very contentious negotiation if it was suggested that he and Davis trade teams.

And for what it's worth, I personally DO believe that Stan doesn't want to put the Raiders in that stadium in Inglewood. But that could be just me as I consider the Raiduhs and most of their fans as rabble. I say most but my uncle is a Raiduh fan and he is far from rabble.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Last I heard they had Goldman Sachs and other private investors - not sure how Davis needs to come up with that portion of it.

The only thing I've heard is Goldman Sachs will help secure funds from PSLs, and naming rights, stuff like that, which they have done for the 49ers and the Giants/Jets. They're not funding it or putting in their own money. Meaning if the Raiders need to come up with significant amounts of cash at this point, unless something changes.

What info out there exactly gives you the impression that Kroenke is in love with the Rams as opposed to any other team?

There is just as much (if not more) info outside of this forum that suggests there is a bigger Raiders fan base in LA than the Rams (and yes fellas, your arguments against such are duly noted, but at the expense of being redundant there is plenty out there to oppose your view)...

I don't have any reason to believe he isn't all Rams or nothing...but I have the exact amount of info to assume he doesn't care either. So I think the possibility of a franchise flip is still on the table and a valid talking point until otherwise factually proven otherwise.

I've never said he was Rams or nothing, but why would he just give up? He's supposed to sell low, and then hope that Davis is successfully forced out by the NFL and then buy that team? If he cares that much about LA isn't it easier to just move them and go to court? There's plenty of unknown in both scenarios, but court at least there's some precedent, and its probably cheaper and easier.

What does he do if Davis doesn't want to give up the Raiders, and sues/wins that court case? Then Kroenke is SOL. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

can't even wear your Rams or Raiders gear at a lot of restaurants for fear of "Gang colors"

What? Where did you hear that? I don't think I've ever seen anyone be asked to move based on wearing Rams/Raiders gear. Raiders get is more associated with gang culture, but I've still never seen it.

 

[iced]

Come on man. I think enough of us lived there to know this isn't true. I'll give you the Raiduh wear but that was NEVER an issue with Rams gear. I did have someone tell me I couldn't wear my black Lakers jacket into a nightclub once though.

I know for a fact this is true - happened to me a couple times when I was wearing my Rams Sweater, Bulger Jersey, Long jersey, and Bradford jersey. Happened more often times than not for my Raider buddies when we went out...

Hell we were briefed on it during indoc about how some of the restaurants/bars felt about football teams colors.

Ventura/Camarillo/Port hueneme area's

 

[bluecoconuts]

I know for a fact this is true - happened to me a couple times when I was wearing my Rams Sweater, Bulger Jersey, Long jersey, and Bradford jersey. Happened more often times than not for my Raider buddies when we went out...

Hell we were briefed on it during indoc about how some of the restaurants/bars felt about football teams colors.

Ventura/Camarillo/Port hueneme area's

That's not really the same thing, I got that same type of briefing at Fort Benning too. Don't wear any team colors out, especially during games.

I was told by my Battalion Commode not to wear anything that demonstrated I was in the 75th, and not to talk to anyone who wore anything from another unit.

That wasn't for any gang related thing, it was because they wanted to keep the peace from a bunch of stupid drunk enlisted soldiers. They didn't want guys from other units trying to pick fights with us with hope they could brag about beating up a Ranger. They didn't want us going to jail or being injured because we were fighting over a game. This included Jaguar fans, Bills fans, every fan, every sport, every level. We needed to be combat effective at all times, hell there were certain bars and clubs we were banned from going to all together.

Completely different thing.

 

[The Ripper]

No, I don't think they meet their arguments

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf



Peacock's working with the taskforce and NFL doesn't give Kroenke any room to stand on when it comes to good faith, especially since we've already heard at the very least Goodell or Grubman address complaints about Kroenke not answering the phone

The guidelines are all subjective and can be changed at anytime. I know that Minnesota page has them as part of the bylaws but they're just league policy. Peacock has only been working on this for the last 6 months but there is 10 more years that will be looked at to determine good faith.

 

[iced]

That's not really the same thing, I got that same type of briefing at Fort Benning too. Don't wear any team colors out, especially during games.

I was told by my Battalion Commode not to wear anything that demonstrated I was in the 75th, and not to talk to anyone who wore anything from another unit.

That wasn't for any gang related thing, it was because they wanted to keep the peace from a bunch of stupid drunk enlisted soldiers. They didn't want guys from other units trying to pick fights with us with hope they could brag about beating up a Ranger. They didn't want us going to jail or being injured because we were fighting over a game. This included Jaguar fans, Bills fans, every fan, every sport, every level. We needed to be combat effective at all times, hell there were certain bars and clubs we were banned from going to all together.

Completely different thing.

Wearing your fatigues out is not allowed as it is for us because it still has your name on the uniform.

And no it doesn't apply - being asked to leave walking into a restaurant because I was swearing my Rams sweater because of it's potential gang "colors"

After the 4th or 5th time I just said screw it and only went out to BJ's Brewhouse for food/football games right off the 101, and Woodranch for dinner with the ex.

It was easier to just not return to those places - I'll spend my hard earned money else where, especially since the sweater was a gift from the ex-wife (so even though the sweater was awesome, if i didn't like it i would have been obligated to wear it anyway)... come to think of it that was probably the only thing i didn't return lol

 

[iced]

The guidelines are all subjective and can be changed at anytime. I know that Minnesota page has them as part of the bylaws but they're just league policy. Peacock has only been working on this for the last 6 months but there is 10 more years that will be looked at to determine good faith.

The owners don't need to go over 10 years of back and forth between the Rams and CVC to figure out if they're actually acting in good faith.

They have a viable stadium plan in place that I think is safe to assume meets NFL standards (i only say this because Peacock gets most of his direct input from the NFL). Can the raiders claim this? Nope. Can the chargers? nope. and both have been working on their stadiums for over 10 years, chargers for 14.

No way 29 other owners looks at all Spanos, Kroenke, and Davis, see's the stadium plan on the table,and thinks "Kroenke is acting in good faith."

 

[RamFan503]

No, I don't think they meet their arguments

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf



Peacock's working with the taskforce and NFL doesn't give Kroenke any room to stand on when it comes to good faith, especially since we've already heard at the very least Goodell or Grubman address complaints about Kroenke not answering the phone

I disagree but not completely in principle. I understand your opinion on the situation but Kroenke himself doesn't have to pick up the phone. The Rams organization has done a lot of community outreach and the NFL very well could decide that the Rams have been negotiating in good faith the entire time the CVC was supposed to bring the Dome up to top tier status. The task force still needs to demonstrate that they can pull off an effort that excites Stan just like SD and Oak do for their respective owners.

The idea that Grubman is only talking about SD or Oak when he states (and he has done so often) that the cities or task forces have to come up with a proposal that excites the owner is not looking at the whole picture. St Louis/MO also still has to come up with a proposal that excites Stan.

And the idea that Spanos and Davis have been working more closely or in good faith with their respective cities than Stan, I don't think really holds much water. Fabiani has been a dick through the entire process and though Spanos himself has apparently met with some of the city leaders, we really don't know what was said in those meetings. I suppose Davis at least has offered up a much more modest suggestion for a stadium in Oakland but....

 

[iced]

The idea that Grubman is only talking about SD or Oak when he states (and he has done so often) that the cities or task forces have to come up with a proposal that excites the owner is not looking at the whole picture. St Louis/MO also still has to come up with a proposal that excites Stan.

And the idea that Spanos and Davis have been working more closely or in good faith with their respective cities than Stan, I don't think really holds much water. Fabiani has been a dick through the entire process and though Spanos himself has apparently met with some of the city leaders, we really don't know what was said in those meetings. I suppose Davis at least has offered up a much more modest suggestion for a stadium in Oakland but....

It doesn't have to excite him as much as it has to meet NFL standards. If the other owners deem it as worthy, hard to vision him getting the rights to move before Spanos and Davis who have been working for years on their stadiums yet to no avail.

not sure how you can say Spanos hasn't been - the big issue for them is that SD doesn't have any public money.

Again, Kroenke is the only owner with a viable deal on the table. So the one city that is ponying up is going to get the shaft while the other two owners are left out in the cold? Call me skeptical.

I don't see Kroenke being told he can move with a stadium on the table and the other two owners' don't after working for 10+ years on it