New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

I agree with all of this except for the relocation fee - Owners have never waived it in the past, and definitely don't see them doing it for the Davis family of all families (you know, the same one that has dragged the NFL into court in the past over relocation and fee's)

The relocation fee was waived for the Raiders move back to Oakland and yes they filled an application to move back that the commissioner recommended for approval. The reason given was that Raiders created the Oakland market, that they never should have left and that a majority of their games in LA were blacked out so the TV revenues wouldn't be adversely affected.

If the NFL wanted the Raiders in St Louis they wouldn't ask for a relocation fee

 

[MrMotes]

The relocation fee was waived for the Raiders move back to Oakland and yes they filled an application to move back that the commissioner recommended for approval. The reason given was that Raiders created the Oakland market, that they never should have left and that a majority of their games in LA were blacked out so the TV revenues wouldn't be adversely affected.

If the NFL wanted the Raiders in St Louis they wouldn't ask for a relocation fee

Bingo!

 

[iced]

The relocation fee was waived for the Raiders move back to Oakland and yes they filled an application to move back that the commissioner recommended for approval. The reason given was that Raiders created the Oakland market, that they never should have left and that a majority of their games in LA were blacked out so the TV revenues wouldn't be adversely affected.

If the NFL wanted the Raiders in St Louis they wouldn't ask for a relocation fee

That's similar to the version of the event I found - but obviously that's not a situation the nfl would be dealing with today.

CHICAGO — Not only is the NFL going to allow the Raiders to leave Los Angeles without a fight, they are probably going to allow them to leave without a fee.

In preparation for today's emergency league meeting here, a club source said Commissioner Paul Tagliabue sent a memo to each of the 30 clubs recommending that they approve the Raiders move to Oakland effective immediately.

In a late-night meeting Thursday, the league's finance committee decided it would not even recommend a relocation fee. Three months ago, the Rams were charged $29 million for the right to leave Anaheim for St. Louis.

The reasoning behind the free ride is that owners believe Oakland is not considered a "hot" expansion or relocation market that could have been used by another team.

The Rams snatched the St. Louis market from several other potential occupants after the market had been enhanced by its support from the league as an expansion finalist.

Oakland has received no enhancements from the league, and only Al Davis wanted to go there.

"There is only one team that belongs in Oakland, or that Oakland would ever want, and that's the Raiders," said one owner. "The Rams' situation was totally different."

While most of the owners are upset that Los Angeles will be left without an NFL team for at least one year, they will approve the Raiders move because they can't force them to stay.

"Nobody likes this, but what are you going to do?" said Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers. "This is why I was against the Rams moving, or any team moving. Where does this leave the fans?"

But the owners say they have no choice.

"It's a done deal because where else are the Raiders going to play?" said an owner. "The league has already come out and said that there is no suitable football stadium in Los Angeles. The Raiders will be much more wanted, and successful, in Oakland."

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-21/sports/sp-26480_1_free-ride

Basically, no one wanted Oakland but the Raiders... and I bolded the Rams relocation fee because that is a scenario where they would charge a relocation fee..

Boy - $29 million in 1996, and now today we're talking $500 million.... how quickly prices inflate

 

[The Ripper]

That's similar to the version of the event I found - but obviously that's not a situation the nfl would be dealing with today.


http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-21/sports/sp-26480_1_free-ride

Basically, no one wanted Oakland but the Raiders... and I bolded the Rams relocation fee because that is a scenario where they would charge a relocation fee..

Boy - $29 million in 1996, and now today we're talking $500 million.... how quickly prices inflate

That's only one part of the fees. $ 30 mil to Anaheim to pay off the bonds and 12.5 million for the loss of revenues from the FOX tv contract. The interesting note on the fee was that originally St Louis only agreed to pay a small amount of it but ended up paying most of it. Tagliabue failed to tell the owners that St Louis was paying anything because if they knew that, the relocation fee would have been much higher.

 

[iced]

That's only one part of the fees. $ 30 mil to Anaheim to pay off the bonds and 12.5 million for the loss of revenues from the FOX tv contract. The interesting note on the fee was that originally St Louis only agreed to pay a small amount of it but ended up paying most of it. Tagliabue failed to tell the owners that St Louis was paying anything because if they knew that the relocation fee would have been much higher.

I was gonna point that out but I wasn't sure how good the original source was (wikipedia)... couldn't find anything on oakland til I typed in "al davis letter of intent" lol

this is what wikipedia had (obviously not a credible source)

On June 23, 1995, Davis signed a letter of intent to move the Raiders back to Oakland. The move was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors the next month[24] As the NFL had never recognized the Raiders' initial move to Los Angeles, they could not disapprove of the move or request a relocation fee, which had to be paid by the Los Angeles Rams for their move to St. Louis.

 

[The Ripper]

I was gonna point that out but I wasn't sure how good the original source was (wikipedia)... couldn't find anything on oakland til I typed in "al davis letter of intent" lol

this is what wikipedia had (obviously not a credible source)

Here's a better source for the information It's the House Judiciary hearings in 1996. I have a better version but it's on a paid site so I can't share it.

http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

 

[iced]

Here's a better source for the information It's the House Judiciary hearings in 1996. I have a better version but it's on a paid site so I can't share it.

http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

lol i'll pass on the narrative, thanks though

NFL Could make their own spin off of Game of Thrones, with LA being King's Landing

 

[bluecoconuts]

A move to St.Louis is going to cost him anywhere between $600 - $900 million when you consider relocation fees (100 to 500m), cost of moving, and his share of stadium (450).

I don't believe he can afford it, and I don't believe the league is going to bend over backwards to reward him with St.Louis either.

I know that the Davis doesn't have deep pocket, but exactly how "shallow" they are is the question. I don't see a relocation fee being anywhere close to what it'll be in LA, but I'm essentially of the opinion that if Davis can afford the move to LA he can afford the move to St Louis. If he needs help to move to LA, why is that help not available to move to St Louis?

Well alienating a fan base or giving that perception isn't helping his cause either.

There's been issues long before all the relocation came about. I understand that a lot of that has to do with the product on the team, but that goes back to the point you can't count on the team to be kicking ass every year.

But that's not how we're asking here - and as it looks, if the owners are gonna have to foot the bills themselves they're gonna build their own awesome stadium in LA.

At least Kroenke can claim he had an option - Davis and Spanos have never had anything resembling a realistic offer

San Diego has come to the Chargers with offers, some of them good and some of them not good. Spanos has repeatedly balked at them and said "Try again, not even close." In fact there's an offer on the table right now, but the Chargers have demanded that the stadium is to be built Downtown, and wont really work with San Diego on the stadium. Is it as far along as the St Louis offer, no, but these things need to start somewhere. One of the biggest differences is that the Rams have at least worked with their task force to tweak things, where the Chargers have just bashed everything that comes their way because if it doesn't meet their high demands, it's not even worth looking at.

I never said Kroenke had to accept that deal - that was to the people saying saying the deal in St.Louis isn't that good or adequate when its clearly on par with newer stadiums in the league.

They can't force him to buy it - but the NFL also can restrict him from leaving, and give the LA option to Chargers/Raiders.. 2 teams in 1 stadium, solving 2 teams stadium issues lacking alternative options?

If stan doesn't want to keep the team in LA - fine, sell it. I'm all for Peacock finding new ownership if it comes to that.

If the deal isn't what Stan wants, then it's not what Stan wants though, everyone wants different things. I don't see how you can compare to other stadiums and say that he can't do what he wants because it's "good enough". The stadium is nice, I don't doubt that, but if it's not the stadium that he wants then it's not it. There's questions on the size, ability to host a Super Bowl, and Stan wont own it. If it's not adequate for him then it's not, there's not much we can do.

 

[iced]

I know that the Davis doesn't have deep pocket, but exactly how "shallow" they are is the question. I don't see a relocation fee being anywhere close to what it'll be in LA, but I'm essentially of the opinion that if Davis can afford the move to LA he can afford the move to St Louis. If he needs help to move to LA, why is that help not available to move to St Louis?

I never said he needed help from the NFL to get to Carson. It looks like they got all they need from Goldman Sachs and PSL's as it stands

There's been issues long before all the relocation came about. I understand that a lot of that has to do with the product on the team, but that goes back to the point you can't count on the team to be kicking ass every year.

you also realize in the same breath that you're criticizing a fan base that supported a franchise that had the NFL Worst record over a period of 3 or 5 years.. and yet, the fans kept supporting the team, despite division 1 high school play.

San Diego has come to the Chargers with offers, some of them good and some of them not good. Spanos has repeatedly balked at them and said "Try again, not even close." In fact there's an offer on the table right now, but the Chargers have demanded that the stadium is to be built Downtown, and wont really work with San Diego on the stadium. Is it as far along as the St Louis offer, no, but these things need to start somewhere. One of the biggest differences is that the Rams have at least worked with their task force to tweak things, where the Chargers have just bashed everything that comes their way because if it doesn't meet their high demands, it's not even worth looking at.

The issue has been and still is Public Funding with San Diego. That hasn't changed at all. And it still has to be put to a vote and pass with 2/3's.

If the deal isn't what Stan wants, then it's not what Stan wants though, everyone wants different things. I don't see how you can compare to other stadiums and say that he can't do what he wants because it's "good enough". The stadium is nice, I don't doubt that, but if it's not the stadium that he wants then it's not it. There's questions on the size, ability to host a Super Bowl, and Stan wont own it. If it's not adequate for him then it's not, there's not much we can do.

I don't think there's questions about anythings that you have listed - especially from the NFL. Remember, Peacock has been working diligently with the NFL for their input on a stadium to attract big events like the Superbowl. What you said is just conjecture.

If he doesn't want it that's fine - but they don't have to let him leave either.

 

[The Ripper]

\
I don't think there's questions about anythings that you have listed - especially from the NFL. Remember, Peacock has been working diligently with the NFL for their input on a stadium to attract big events like the Superbowl. What you said is just conjecture.

If he doesn't want it that's fine - but they don't have to let him leave either.

The Riverfront Stadium doesn't meet the requirement for a Superbowl.

They also can't make him stay.

 

[blue4]

I think at this point the St Louis Raiders and the the St Louis Rams are about equally likely in 2016. That's best case scenario.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I never said he needed help from the NFL to get to Carson. It looks like they got all they need from Goldman Sachs and PSL's as it stands

I'm not talking about help from the NFL, I'm talking about help in general. If Goldman Sachs can help them move to Carson why can't they help them move to St Louis? I'm saying that if the Raiders want to move to St Louis, they will find a way to get it done. If the Rams and Chargers take up LA, and the Raiders don't go to St Louis, it wont be because they can't afford it.

you also realize in the same breath that you're criticizing a fan base that supported a franchise that had the NFL Worst record over a period of 3 or 5 years.. and yet, the fans kept supporting the team, despite division 1 high school play.

I have nothing but love for St Louis and the St Louis fanbase, but the numbers are there. You and I understand circumstances around it, and we don't blame anyone for not wanting to go to a game, but the simple fact is that owners are about bottom dollars, and the numbers say what they say. That's where it circles back to creating a total package, that'll be more inviting to the casual fan, more inviting for fans to go out there with their family, even when the team is down. I'm not saying that St Louis can't do that either. I'm not really sure on attendance numbers year by year, especially when you go back, plus if I recall correctly from 1995-2005 any unsold tickets had to be bought by the CVC to avoid blackouts. Don't quote me on that though.

The issue has been and still is Public Funding with San Diego. That hasn't changed at all. And it still has to be put to a vote and pass with 2/3's.

Actually I believe if the county comes into play there's a way to avoid the 2/3rds, which is why it was such a big deal.

I don't think there's questions about anythings that you have listed - especially from the NFL. Remember, Peacock has been working diligently with the NFL for their input on a stadium to attract big events like the Superbowl. There's just conjecture.

If he doesn't want it that's fine - but they don't have to let him leave either.

Yeah, I just don't really have faith that the NFL will try to stop Kroenke. I have more faith now that Carson is a possibility, but still not that much. I'm still at about 60% they leave, which is down from 70% before Carson came about.

 

[iced]

The Riverfront Stadium doesn't meet the requirement for a Superbowl.

lol what? how so?

 

[Mikey Ram]

I'm a Ram fan dating back to 1958... Obviously I have no say in where they play, nor do I really care...The exception to that is that I have empathy for the fans of St. Louis who have supported pretty well a farce franchise (quality wise) for the past decade or more...They did get the only SB win, and I'm sure they are grateful for that..Although I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, I'm a little irked by the LA fans who seem to think they're entitled somehow to have the Rams return to LA...Blame Frontiere if you like, but the support for the Rams there the last years before the move was less than impressive...I'll still be a Ram fan wherever they play, I just see a couple of different viewpoints here...

 

[iced]

I'm not talking about help from the NFL, I'm talking about help in general. If Goldman Sachs can help them move to Carson why can't they help them move to St Louis? I'm saying that if the Raiders want to move to St Louis, they will find a way to get it done. If the Rams and Chargers take up LA, and the Raiders don't go to St Louis, it wont be because they can't afford it.

If it was that easy they would have had a stadium in Oakland right now, especially "if they really wanted to get it done..."

Actually I believe if the county comes into play there's a way to avoid the 2/3rds, which is why it was such a big deal.

And yet nothing has changed in the 14 years, even with this LA pressure - they still can't get the public financing. Lol I'm not gonna keep beating this dead horse. They supposedly have a financing plan that they're also pitching on the 20th next week so it'll be wait and see til then.

Yeah, I just don't really have faith that the NFL will try to stop Kroenke. I have more faith now that Carson is a possibility, but still not that much. I'm still at about 60% they leave, which is down from 70% before Carson came about.

I think the owners would rather go the route I mentioned because of the difference in revenue that I explained in previous posts. We'll see how real Carson is as a possibility soon, especially since they're apparently financed at this point. And if they dot all their i's and cross their t's , I can see them getting priority easily - all teams get new stadiums and new deals, with 2 teams in the LA market for more revenue while maintaining a St.Louis and Oakland market without over saturating the SoCal market.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If it was that easy they would have had a stadium in Oakland right now, especially "if they really wanted to get it done..."

That goes back to the right type of investments. Investors might not see much in Oakland, but St Louis can be a different scenario.

And yet nothing has changed in the 14 years, even with this LA pressure - they still can't get the public financing. Lol I'm not gonna keep beating this dead horse. They supposedly have a financing plan that they're also pitching on the 20th next week so it'll be wait and see til then.

That's a recent development, so 14 years doesn't really mean anything. We'll see what they bring to the table though, but I'm half expecting the Chargers to trash it regardless.

I think the owners would rather go the route I explained because of the difference in revenue that I explained in previous posts. We'll see how real Carson is as a possibility soon, especially since they're apparently financed at this point. And if they dot all their i's and cross their t's , I can see them getting priority easily - all teams get new stadiums and new deals, with 2 teams in the LA market for more revenue while maintaining a St.Louis and Oakland market without over saturating the SoCal market.

I haven't seen much about the Carson financing, which makes me think it's not as finalized as the article made it appear to be. I can see Carson getting priority, but ultimately I still believe they pick the strongest project, and right now I think it's Inglewood. No matter what site they pick, there's a scenario where all three teams are happy and have a new house, and most likely no matter what site they pick there are two teams in LA.

So does the NFL feel that the Rams and Chargers are better for LA? Or the Raiders and Chargers? Raiders and Rams? Do they risk Kroenke upset? Davis upset? Spanos upset? What if they deny Kroenke and he's pissed and the Rams don't get a new house, and he refuses to sell, and the market becomes poisoned? What if they let the Raiders get the short straw and they don't want to move, but can't make it work in Oakland? What if Spanos and Kroenke can't come to an agreement, but they want Inglewood over Carson? These are all things the NFL has to think about.

 

[The Ripper]

lol what? how so?

The Riverfront Stadium the stadiums seating is too low to satisfy the league requirements.

The misconception about changes to the bylaws is incorrect. The bylaws haven't changed. The only change was in league policy which is what the relocation guidelines are. The league was told to have objective guidelines in place but they kept them subjective.

n3 In Raiders I the Ninth Circuit held that Article 4.3 had impermissibly foreclosed competition between stadia seeking NFL tenants and granted exclusive territories to NFL teams. 726 F.2d at 1395. Future applications of the rule could withstand scrutiny, however, if the NFL adopted objective factors for consideration by team owners before voting, as well as clarified procedures including an opportunity for any applicant to make a presentation to the league. Id. at 1397.


The league policies in regards to penalties can be seen as punitive in an antitrust case. Which brings up that the league is composed 32 individual businesses not a single economic entity. The NFL tried to have Congress grant them a limited antitrust exemption but they refused. The NFL has also tried to use the same single economic entity argument in court but in each case it was denied because the basis of collateral estoppel.

Raiders I, 726 F.2d at 1387-90 (league not a single economic enterprise because teams have independent value, are separately owned and managed, earn different profits, and compete in various ways).

 

[Hacksaw]

Hope springs eternal.

 

[iced]

So does the NFL feel that the Rams and Chargers are better for LA? Or the Raiders and Chargers? Raiders and Rams? Do they risk Kroenke upset? Davis upset? Spanos upset? What if they deny Kroenke and he's pissed and the Rams don't get a new house, and he refuses to sell, and the market becomes poisoned? What if they let the Raiders get the short straw and they don't want to move, but can't make it work in Oakland? What if Spanos and Kroenke can't come to an agreement, but they want Inglewood over Carson? These are all things the NFL has to think about.

Yep, there are a lot of them. And all those diferent scenarios can be applied to each and every team..but at the end of the day, it comes down to dollars and cents.

that's why I liked my scenario. It generates the most revenue, imo. Of course you think the Raiders would move to St.Louis, which I believe I have a better chance of scoring with Anna Kendricks than that happening. That's the biggest reason why I don't see yours making the most sense.

The Riverfront Stadium the stadiums seating is too low to satisfy the league requirements.

That's bogus - Lucas Oil (2012) and Phoenix (this year) have lower seating capacity. Riverfront is 64,000 ; Lucas is 63,000; Phoenix is 63,400. And before you talk about standing room/expanded seats, you don't know what that number would be for the Riverfront.

The misconception about changes to the bylaws is incorrect. The bylaws haven't changed. The only change was in league policy which is what the relocation guidelines are. The league was told to have objective guidelines in place but they kept them subjective.

n3 In Raiders I the Ninth Circuit held that Article 4.3 had impermissibly foreclosed competition between stadia seeking NFL tenants and granted exclusive territories to NFL teams. 726 F.2d at 1395. Future applications of the rule could withstand scrutiny, however, if the NFL adopted objective factors for consideration by team owners before voting, as well as clarified procedures including an opportunity for any applicant to make a presentation to the league. Id. at 1397.


The league policies in regards to penalties can be seen as punitive in an antitrust case. Which brings up that the league is composed 32 individual businesses not a single economic entity. The NFL tried to have Congress grant them a limited antitrust exemption but they refused. The NFL has also tried to use the same single economic entity argument in court but in each case it was denied because the basis of collateral estoppel.

Raiders I, 726 F.2d at 1387-90 (league not a single economic enterprise because teams have independent value, are separately owned and managed, earn different profits, and compete in various ways).

i have no idea what you're quoting me on here or replying to

And you're dead wrong about the Anti-trust bit. The NFL has specific exemptions; they tried to get a broad anti-trust status but they turned them down

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yep, there are a lot of them. And all those diferent scenarios can be applied to each and every team..but at the end of the day, it comes down to dollars and cents.

that's why I liked my scenario. It generates the most revenue, imo. Of course you think the Raiders would move to St.Louis, which I believe I have a better chance of scoring with Anna Kendricks than that happening. That's the biggest reason why I don't see yours making the most sense.

Yup, like I said, it boils down to me thinking the Raiders might move to St Louis. It might be wishful thinking on my point, because I'd really rather St Louis be an NFL city than not, and I'm pessimistic about the Rams staying.