New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

We have heard that they want a California solution for the California market and that they are not sure they want to reward a team that voluntarily abandoned that market.

The "California solution" is term that came from a reporter not the NFL. California being one of the largest states by population and geographic size can support many more teams. Home many teams occupy the same size and population in the midwest? 7 possibly 8. It was addressed but the Chargers really don't count even though they were in LA as voluntarily. The AFL wasn't a real league when they were in LA. The Raiders though stated they they failed to develop fan base in LA in their relocation application which the league agreed. The Rams assertions in their application were proved incorrect by the league.

Davis family like the red headed step child.

That's what they are. They don't have the capital to run a successful team in today's environment. The statement of 32 billionaires is incorrect because the Davis's are not in that club. The stories prior to Carson all stated that the NFL wanted an ownership change. The team had been poorly managed for years. The other factor is that they have had a solution to their stadium problems that they refused the NFL's recommendations.


Second, if public financing comes through the league will turning down at least $400 million in public money which they have never done. This will have a domino affect on all the other markets like TB and Jax who are asking for public money. Those markets can use this against the NFL.

This isn't the first time or last time the NFL turns down public money. It's not about the dollar number but the percentage. In this case 40% is not 57%. The Rams had several opportunities for a stadium with public money in Anaheim along with a new practice facility, lease concessions that included guaranteed ticket sales. Baltimore and Cleveland both had money on the table but it wasn't enough so it was turned down.

I don't believe for one second he didn't have anything to do with the lease. Shaw didn't operate under a cloak and dagger scenario. Both GF and Stan played a role in relocation.

Stan had nothing to do with the lease or with relocation. The terms of the lease were decided with the relocation agreement that Stan was not a part of the negotiations. One of the reasons that St Louis was the Rams choice was because Shaw thought he could control Stan better than Peter Angelos.

As far as the lease goes I don't know what the contract looks, like nor would I probably understand it if I did, but I don't buy the argument that they are free agents. If that was true they wouldn't need permission to relocate.

The relocation agreement and the lease are 2 different things. The lease was specific to the dome but the relocation agreement said "stadia" not specific to any stadium. The relocation agreement and the clause was approved by the league when the approval to relocate was given.

 

[RamFan503]

It's a shame they can't put parking on the Illinois side and run 2 ferries to that awesome dock they put on the river.

Why can't they do a parking structure and have tailgating on the top level? I don't get it. Anyone know why this is? It's bugged me all along with this talk of not enough parking spaces.

 

[The Ripper]

Lol right. I can't break down some of the statues that well (especially the sherman act) , had to have my old man spell it out to me like a Legal Hooked on phonics

The problem with the Sherman Act is that if you read it just like any of the statues the courts have changed the original intent so much that you also need to read through all the precedents. Which is extremely boring and unfortunately I have read through them but only after a couple of Coors Lights.

 

[bluecoconuts]

No, losing the anti trust exemption would be devastating to the NFL. Allowing them to negotiate as one is huge. That's why they share the revenues, equally, regardless of market size. Losing the exemptions would cause a snowball effect - no more salary cap, Market revenue shares, etc.

Kroenke wouldn't sue if he went to LA - he'd sue if he was he told he wasn't going to go to LA... And he would most likely win on that basis, but at the cost of the exemptions. Win the battle, lose the war.

Yeah, that's devastating to the NFL, but for the second richest owner in the second largest market? Sounds like he can buy the best players, make very rich marketing deals, and buy himself some rings.

 

[The Ripper]

Why can't they do a parking structure and have tailgating on the top level? I don't get it. Anyone know why this is? It's bugged me all along with this talk of not enough parking spaces.

Alcohol and heights don't mix.

 

[Hacksaw]

Yeah, that's devastating to the NFL, but for the second richest owner in the second largest market? Sounds like he can buy the best players, make very rich marketing deals, and buy himself some rings.

Rams Superbowl rings has a nice ring to it.

 

[RamFan503]

Alcohol and heights don't mix.

I get that - so go down instead of up or build up the soil level so that the top floor is actually on ground level. Lots of parking structures are below ground.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If Carson is a viable project and the Chargers and Raiders move in together at the same time. The Rams get a new riverfront stadium and all three teams well remain in or close to that original market. Now the fans lose any way this thing goes. If you move the Rams to LA then either the Charges or Raiders lose. Neither one will be able to exist in the current stadium situation. For that franchise to thrive it will probably need significant help from the NFL or face relocation and start from scratch in another environment. Currently all three have somewhat of an LA fanbase but only one has a strong fanbase outside of LA, that's the Rams. It absolutely can start a domino affect. I don't care what the market is if you see the STL contributed $400 million in public funds and the NFL allows them to relocate what incentive does that give any other market to contribute? Well you have money from STL and you still let them leave so why should we contribute? Clearly cities are not enthusiastic about contributing money to billionaires and this give them a reason. Owners that don't want to or can't fit the bill on their own need public funds. There are only a handful of cities that can use the San Fran model to build a stadium. Jax and TB are not one of them.

I'd say the NFL would highly disagree that only the Rams have a large/strong fanbase outside of LA, that's a somewhat rediculous statement in my mind.

In terms of motivation, if the team wants to stay there that's motivation enough. To suggest that Tampa Bay or Jacksonville are going to be so upset that the Rams left St Louis, they will push their teams out? That makes zero sense to me, why would they do that? Honestly why would they care? Again, people already know stadiums can be paid for with only public funds, there's no going back from that.

 

[The Ripper]

I get that - so go down instead of up or build up the soil level so that the top floor is actually on ground level. Lots of parking structures are below ground.

Very good point . Cars below and tailgating vehicles on ground level.

 

[Goose]

I'd say the NFL would highly disagree that only the Rams have a large/strong fanbase outside of LA, that's a somewhat rediculous statement in my mind.

In terms of motivation, if the team wants to stay there that's motivation enough. To suggest that Tampa Bay or Jacksonville are going to be so upset that the Rams left St Louis, they will push their teams out? That makes zero sense to me, why would they do that? Honestly why would they care? Again, people already know stadiums can be paid for with only public funds, there's no going back from that.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Every team has somewhat of a fanbase across the country but STL has 20 years with a fans in the City. You can't expect the same level or support to exists in another other city a team would relocate to. There is more Charger fans in SD than in LA but you wouldn't have anything close that support in San Antonio or any other city. So I am confused by your argument.

Jax, TB, and Carolina due care because it puts public fund which are already difficult to secure potentially that much more difficult. The cities clearly won't push out an NFL team but do you think they are going to open up the wallet and contribute to a stadium when the team can decide nah I'd rather go play somewhere else? People know they don't have to be paid with public funds. They don't have to build massive stadiums with all the glitz and glamour. That's the point. To say they can only be built with public funds is false, it may be how the NFL wants it but the reality is it doesn't need to be and that is the argument that political figures and cities are making.

 

[iced]

Yeah, that's devastating to the NFL, but for the second richest owner in the second largest market? Sounds like he can buy the best players, make very rich marketing deals, and buy himself some rings.

It won't come to that - and Kroenke would have to be a very, very poor business man to do so. (To be a billionaire, he's obviously proven he's not).

The losses out weigh the gains. The biggest revenue the NFL gets is from the Market shares - why do you think the salary cap keeps going up? It's not a coincidence after Direct TV made a deal for $12 billion over 8 years (and they're paying double what they were before, 1.5 billion a year).. And that's just direct TV - that doesn't include other providers, network stations like ABC/NBC, Advertisers, Radio statons, etc. you get the idea

But I don't see this line of thinking panning out, nor would it go well for all the other owners... And all indications are Kroenke isn't going to fight the league - which makes sense when you consider the potential losses

 

[iced]

Alcohol and heights don't mix.

they got bigger things to worry about these days, like the violence among rival fans and security....

Will never forget that blood bath between the Raiders and Niners Fans - at a preseason game...

fights in the stands, bathrooms, stabbings, shootings in the parking lot.. the whole place was chaotic. Smart move to not them let play anymore in the preseason

 

[ChrisW]

Why can't they do a parking structure and have tailgating on the top level? I don't get it. Anyone know why this is? It's bugged me all along with this talk of not enough parking spaces.

Could employ some of these type of deals.

Looks to be what....about 25 spots for 2-3 spots of lands space.

 

[iced]

Could employ some of these type of deals.

Looks to be what....about 25 spots for 2-3 spots of lands space.

Can't wait to wait in line for that $30 ride!

 

[The Ripper]

It won't come to that - and Kroenke would have to be a very, very poor business man to do so. (To be a billionaire, he's obviously proven he's not).

The losses out weigh the gains. The biggest revenue the NFL gets is from the Market shares - why do you think the salary cap keeps going up? It's not a coincidence after Direct TV made a deal for $12 billion over 8 years (and they're paying double whwith mostat they were before, 1.5 billion a year).. And that's just direct TV - that doesn't include other providers, network stations like ABC/NBC, Advertisers, Radio statons, etc. you get the idea

But I don't see this line of thinking panning out, nor would it go well for all the other owners... And all indications are Kroenke isn't going to fight the league - which makes sense when you consider the potential losses

"Georgia is no Al Davis" a direct quote that was said over and over again till the details of the suit were leaked to the press so no one can say that Kroenke won't fight. The difference here is that he doesn't say anything so if he is even thinking about it the league and the other owners are the only ones that will know.

 

[Username]

Anyone post this yet?
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=899594486765139&set=o.177083695980&type=1&hc_location=ufi

 

[wsaladen]

MLS commissioner Don Garber to visit St. Louis
Posted: 13 May 2015 12:48 pm

Forum User

Joined: 15 Dec 2014 15:07 pm
Posts: 3004
Quote:
As part of their attempt to get a new NFL venue off the ground on the north riverfront, St. Louis stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz have suggested the facility could also attract an Major League Soccer expansion franchise.

Peackock had at least one meeting in New York with MLS commissioner Don Garber, and now a second summit is on the schedule. But this time around, Garber will make the trip to St. Louis for an up-close look at the stadium plans and to gauge the city's interest in the MLS.

Garber will visit St. Louis Tuesday, May 19, to meet with area business leaders, public officials and representatives from the STL soccer community.

Garber's fact-finding mission will include visits with local leaders, including Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, and Peacock.

According to a release issued by the stadium task force, Garber's visit will conclude at 4 p.m. with a fan rally event at Ballpark Village.

Garber plans to address the fans, representatives from the Saint Louis Football Club and other local soccer figures.

Fans are encouraged to come to Ballpark Village in a show of support for the MLS.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/mls-commissioner-don-garber-to-visit-st-louis/article_84ff3fa3-a9b3-5508-b17f-0e5842f389bc.html

 

[wsaladen]

Now this is getting interesting!!

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Every team has somewhat of a fanbase across the country but STL has 20 years with a fans in the City. You can't expect the same level or support to exists in another other city a team would relocate to. There is more Charger fans in SD than in LA but you wouldn't have anything close that support in San Antonio or any other city. So I am confused by your argument.

I don't understand what you're saying. The exact quote you said before was "Only the Rams have a strong fanbase outside of LA" as a reason for why they shouldn't go to LA and I said the NFL would probably say that's false. Now you're talking about 20 years of Rams fans in St Louis? The Raiders have 55 years worth of fans in Oakland, the Chargers have 54 years in San Diego. Are you saying that if a team would relocate to St Louis they wouldn't have support? There was 27 years of the St Louis Cardinals, and it seemed the city took to the Rams pretty quickly. What does this have to do with what team goes to LA though?

Jax, TB, and Carolina due care because it puts public fund which are already difficult to secure potentially that much more difficult. The cities clearly won't push out an NFL team but do you think they are going to open up the wallet and contribute to a stadium when the team can decide nah I'd rather go play somewhere else? People know they don't have to be paid with public funds. They don't have to build massive stadiums with all the glitz and glamour. That's the point. To say they can only be built with public funds is false, it may be how the NFL wants it but the reality is it doesn't need to be and that is the argument that political figures and cities are making.

All of those cities have been reluctant to open up their wallets long before this situation has come across, you can't go and point to this as any reason why. If the cities don't want to open up their wallets it wont be because of what happens in St Louis. While people in St Louis will care that the Rams left with a deal on the table, why would people in Tampa Bay care? If the team says they want to stay, then why would the city refuse to work with them? Because if they do they might change their mind? There's no logic in that. If I'm trying to get a pay raise at work, and I know that my bosses are open to giving me one, should I quit my job just because they might change their mind? If the cities don't want to open their wallet up because they can't afford it that's not going to change. I'm not sure on the Bucs lease agreement, but Jacksonville is there until 2030, so whatever happens in St Louis will have zero effect on what happens in 15 years. The Panthers are in their lease until 2019, and their owner doesn't want to move. The only question is his health and if a new owner would.

In any of those cases, there is zero logical sense to refuse to use public support to help build a new stadium based on the fact that the Rams could leave for a 100% privately financed stadium in a new city with a a deal on the table for a new stadium with public assistance in their current city. They will base it off of factors like the economy, public support, etc. The average joe in another NFL city is not going to care about why the Rams leave, there's no reason for them to.

 

[ChrisW]

Can't wait to wait in line for that $30 ride!

Would it be much different than waiting in a parking garage for the traffic to clear?