New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

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.

Riverfront is actually 62,000, but you're right in terms of expanded seats. I think the issue is more about the style of venue (unless St Louis gets a promise for a Super Bowl like New York gets, I don't think there's a good chance it happens) and maybe parking (although I think they added more?).

 

[iced]

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.

i can't imagine that going over well with the city of st.louis

we just got over dealing perennial losers - its fair to wonder about the support. I mean the Rams gave the city something to be attached to, something to be apart of. The ring, the GSOT - they established/built something here.

But a team like the Raiders, with their history and present... bleh.. that'd be an interesting gamble

 

[The Ripper]

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.

They have already said that it won't be able to accommodate a Superbowl. The stadium must expand to 70,000 seats not standing room. A dome or outdoor stadium if average January temperature is 50 degrees or higher(MetLife was an exception).

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ty-bid-specifications-and-requirements-leaked

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

I thought the "How so" was in response to I said "they can't make him stay".

 

[iced]

They have already said that it won't be able to accommodate a Superbowl. The stadium must expand to 70,000 seats not standing room. A dome or outdoor stadium if average January temperature is 50 degrees or higher(MetLife was an exception).

if they can add seats to Lucas oil and Phoenix I'm sure they can do the same for St.Louis. Phoenix increased by 15,000 seats; 7,000 to Lucas oil to bring it up to 70,000 (need 8,000 for riverfront)

But if that's the case that they said it won't, I'm kinda shocked that they build a stadium that won't bring one.

Reading over those guidelines though for a superbowl is ridiculous

(for those curious)
http://champsnation.com/2014/06/nfl-super-bowl-requirements-host-city-accidentally-leaked/

I thought the "How so" was in response to I said "they can't make him stay".

ah no.

They can't force him to buy or do anything - the only thing they can do is prevent him from leaving. If he doesn't get the votes to move then he can't move.

 

[The Ripper]

Reading over those guidelines though for a superbowl is ridiculous


They can't force him to buy or do anything - the only thing they can do is prevent him from leaving. If he doesn't get the votes to move then he can't move.

Amazing the arrogance of the NFL. They could get sponsors to pay for a lot of the requirements but they want the money.

If he wants to move the NFL can't stop him. A potential 6 billion loss for the NFL in 1995 might be triple now so they wouldn't attempt to fight it with all the precedence especially since it would be in the same court in California.

 

[blue4]

i can't imagine that going over well with the city of st.louis

we just got over dealing perennial losers - its fair to wonder about the support. I mean the Rams gave the city something to be attached to, something to be apart of. The ring, the GSOT - they established/built something here.

But a team like the Raiders, with their history and present... bleh.. that'd be an interesting gamble

I know I've chimed in on this several times, but being here in the city everyday I think it will take about 5 mins to adjust to the St Louis Raiders. The hate for Kroenke and how he's handled this, plus being a local guy and doing this to boot, makes any other team buying in here an easy sell. I've not met one single person who is against another team coming here if the Rams leave and a good many who've gone from season ticket holders to advocating for a new team.

 

[iced]

Amazing the arrogance of the NFL. They could get sponsors to pay for a lot of the requirements but they want the money.

If he wants to move the NFL can't stop him. A potential 6 billion loss for the NFL in 1995 might be triple now so they wouldn't attempt to fight it with all the precedence especially since it would be in the same court in California.

oh he's got a lot of incentives to not fight it in litigation - there's a lot of potential backlash, most notably from congress and the nfl's anti-trust status.. And if the Carson deal gets approved, not sure what'd he fight or where he'd go..

but lot of people on here have been saying all indications are kroenke won't go against the league - if you think the stadium situation is complex, you don't even wanna think about the litigation angle, especially when it comes to the nfl's anti trust exemptions. Congress already threatened them once in december when it came to the black out rule; better believe they're watching this playout

 

[The Ripper]

oh he's got a lot of incentives to not fight it in litigation - there's a lot of potential backlash, most notably from congress and the nfl's anti-trust status.. And if the Carson deal gets approved, not sure what'd he fight or where he'd go..

but lot of people on here have been saying all indications are kroenke won't go against the league - if you think the stadium situation is complex, you don't even wanna think about the litigation angle, especially when it comes to the nfl's anti trust exemptions. Congress already threatened them once in december when it came to the black out rule; better believe they're watching this playout

The NFL only has a limited antitrust exemption and Congress denied the protection for relocation. The NFL is the one who requested the hearings and nothing became of it. Congress won't get involved. They may hold hearings which the NFL would love but noting will happen

 

[iced]

The NFL only has a limited antitrust exemption and Congress denied the protection for relocation. The NFL is the one who requested the hearings and nothing became of it. Congress won't get involved. They may hold hearings which the NFL would love but noting will happen

Yea, and congress threatened their current exemptions. They're keeping their eye on the situation. This is something my old man (retired Lawyer, current Prof. in Law including corporate and business law) has iterated to me over the past several months. "You don't want to wave a red flag at the bull (congress)" is the quote he likes to keep repeating. There's a lot of things they're watching. As to the anti trust issues, this is basis Kroenke would sue on if he tried to move the team, Article 1 of the sherman anti trust act. And better believe the NFL doesn't want to lose this exemption - they may be 32 individual businesses, but the exemption give them ability to negotiate as one for the Television markets, Radios, etc. That's why every team has an even split of the TV revenue (last years was around $200 for each team, believe I saw JT quote it as $212). And that TV revenue is one of the largest sources of income for them.

 

[The Ripper]

I don't think it would come to a suit because in the end it will be all worked out behind closed doors. If the Rams stay it will because the revenue numbers are high enough.

 

[Sum1]

i can't imagine that going over well with the city of st.louis

we just got over dealing perennial losers - its fair to wonder about the support. I mean the Rams gave the city something to be attached to, something to be apart of. The ring, the GSOT - they established/built something here.

But a team like the Raiders, with their history and present... bleh.. that'd be an interesting gamble

If the Rams leave and there is no team here for a few years...there would be a desire for any team. I'd have a hard time believing that if the scenario of the Rams in Chargers in LA happens that the Raiders would move to St.Louis the same exact year...I think it would be at least another year or two down the road. But that just my guess...

 

[Legatron4]

Is everyone here a lawyer or something? How the hell do you guys know so much about bonds and antitrust laws and litigation? I've been basically reading this thread but it's hard to keep up with all the crazy talk. What does the "G4 Loan" do? Is that the NFL helping pay for relocation? I'm just so utterly confused by all of this.

 

[Sum1]

Is everyone here a lawyer or something? How the hell do you guys know so much about bonds and antitrust laws and litigation? I've been basically reading this thread but it's hard to keep up with all the crazy talk. What does the "G4 Loan" do? Is that the NFL helping pay for relocation? I'm just so utterly confused by all of this.

You didn't know? We are all expert talent evaluators and weekend attorneys. Get up to speed bro....

 

[den-the-coach]

Is everyone here a lawyer or something? How the hell do you guys know so much about bonds and antitrust laws and litigation? I've been basically reading this thread but it's hard to keep up with all the crazy talk. What does the "G4 Loan" do? Is that the NFL helping pay for relocation? I'm just so utterly confused by all of this.

It's all speculation, however, it also depends on what side you're on too even if like me you try to be unbiased, but you can't be because you have feelings for both sides.

In the end some fans are going to lose and that is the unfortunate part because the Rams need all the fans they can get no matter where those fans call home.

 

[The Ripper]

Is everyone here a lawyer or something? How the hell do you guys know so much about bonds and antitrust laws and litigation? I've been basically reading this thread but it's hard to keep up with all the crazy talk. What does the "G4 Loan" do? Is that the NFL helping pay for relocation? I'm just so utterly confused by all of this.

G4 is not supposed to for relocation. It's the loan program from the NFL. I was VP of Sales for one of the largest municipal underwriters and worked on a number of financing deals in California. I am not a lawyer but do a lot of my work building cases and sometimes we do end up in court

 

[den-the-coach]

I was VP of Sales for one of the largest municipal underwriters and worked on a number of financing deals in California.

So being "The Ripper" is apropos!

 

[The Ripper]

So being "The Ripper" is apropos!

That could be said but the nickname is from my college lacrosse days. I have some knowledge but I didn't build the deals just told the story.

 

[dieterbrock]

That could be said but the nickname is from my college lacrosse days. .

I'm assuming that means your first name may be Jack....

 

[The Ripper]

I'm assuming that means your first name may be Jack....

Close Rick

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yea, and congress threatened their current exemptions. They're keeping their eye on the situation. This is something my old man (retired Lawyer, current Prof. in Law including corporate and business law) has iterated to me over the past several months. "You don't want to wave a red flag at the bull (congress)" is the quote he likes to keep repeating. There's a lot of things they're watching. As to the anti trust issues, this is basis Kroenke would sue on if he tried to move the team, Article 1 of the sherman anti trust act. And better believe the NFL doesn't want to lose this exemption - they may be 32 individual businesses, but the exemption give them ability to negotiate as one for the Television markets, Radios, etc. That's why every team has an even split of the TV revenue (last years was around $200 for each team, believe I saw JT quote it as $212). And that TV revenue is one of the largest sources of income for them.

So if the Rams were to go to LA and open a lawsuit even though congress might end antitrust exemptions (I don't know if they actually would) wouldn't that benefit Kroenke? It means he gets to negotiate his own TV contract while being in LA? Dodgers struck a 7-8 billion dollar deal for their TV bullshit, an NFL team is probably 10+ easily. That seems like a win for Kroenke.