New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

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

NFL has stated repeatedly they're not looking to relocate, and I have a hard time believing this person has any idea what the hell they're talking about when they can't even spell Kroenke correctly.

 

[Username]

NFL has stated repeatedly they're not looking to relocate, and I have a hard time believing this person has any idea what the hell they're talking about when they can't even spell Kroenke correctly.

I have no idea where it came from, someone just text it to me. You mean expand right, not relocate btw right?

 

[RamBill]

St. Louis stadium leaders to host MLS officials
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/18467/st-louis-stadium-leaders-to-host-mls-officials

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Although it's American football that will ultimately decide whether the St. Louis stadium proposal comes to fruition, the task force in charge of seeing the project through is covering all of its bases.

So it is that local leaders, including task force head Dave Peacock, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay will host key Major League Soccer officials in St. Louis on Tuesday. The MLS contingent includes Commissioner Don Garber and some of his top lieutenants.

The St. Louis stadium proposal is focused on keeping the Rams in St. Louis or at least ensuring that the city remains home to an NFL team. But beyond that, the group also has included plans for an MLS team to help occupy the stadium past the 10 dates for the NFL each season. Those plans have been rendered into the proposal since it was first publicly revealed in January.

According to a release from the stadium task force, the MLS leaders will "meet with area business leaders, public officials and key representatives from the local soccer community to learn more about the city’s potential as a home for an MLS expansion club."

The MLS visit even includes a fan-centric part of the day with a rally at 4 p.m. CT at Ballpark Village for area soccer fans to demonstrate their passion for soccer to the commissioner and his crew.

While the MLS portion of the deal is likely dependent on the NFL committing to the city first, having the support of soccer could be beneficial to the big picture plan for the city. Most notably, it would make such a stadium more palatable for the public with the knowledge that it would be used on a regular basis beyond the confines of football.

 

[iced]

"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.

I have never said he won't - I said that's been the early indications that people have mentioned in this thread (sorry can't remember who, and there's a lot of pages to look through). But for all we know that's just another "source"that wants to be anonymous..

however the big difference now is congress's attention - 20 years ago, they didn't have their attention that they do now...And better believe they're watching tax payers dollars and the whole situation.

 

[iced]

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

Depends on how good the people are organizing parking - in my experiences I'm not holding my breath lol

 

[bluecoconuts]

I have no idea where it came from, someone just text it to me. You mean expand right, not relocate btw right?

Yeah, expand. My guess is it came from one of the Facebook sites, both of them are pretty awful though, I wouldn't put any money on that.

 

[den-the-coach]

[Q

Yeah, expand. My guess is it came from one of the Facebook sites, both of them are pretty awful though, I wouldn't put any money on that.

They're both humorous it's like viewing a combination of MSNBC & Fox News.

 

[Username]

[Q


They're both humorous it's like viewing a combination of MSNBC & Fox News.

LooooooooooooooooL

 

[The Ripper]

I have never said he won't - I said that's been the early indications that people have mentioned in this thread (sorry can't remember who, and there's a lot of pages to look through). But for all we know that's just another "source"that wants to be anonymous..

however the big difference now is congress's attention - 20 years ago, they didn't have their attention that they do now...And better believe they're watching tax payers dollars and the whole situation.

I agree with most of it except with Congressional scrutiny was much worse in the 80's, 1996 and 2005. Nothing every becomes off it. Just look at the relocation's the hearings in 1996 went through all the relocation's since the early 80's. It was all a lot of nothing and it will be again.

 

[iced]

I agree with most of it except with Congressional scrutiny was much worse in the 80's, 1996 and 2005. Nothing every becomes off it. Just look at the relocation's the hearings in 1996 went through all the relocation's since the early 80's. It was all a lot of nothing and it will be again.

scrutiny yes - but they weren't threatening their exemptions then, they have recently .Congress threatened their exemptions, and then the nfl finally listened about the black out rule (They thought they could get around it with the black out rule written into their contracts with providers, so congress just upped the ante). Already catching attention for their on going legal cases (domestic abuse) as well.

Not a good idea to tempt the bull

 

[bluecoconuts]

scrutiny yes - but they weren't threatening their exemptions then, they have recently .Congress threatened their exemptions, and then the nfl finally listened about the black out rule (They thought they could get around it with the black out rule written into their contracts with providers, so congress just upped the ante). Already catching attention for their on going legal cases (domestic abuse) as well.

Not a good idea to tempt the bull

Just get a Democratic congressman to propose taking away exemptions, and it'll never get to the floor.


Honestly I don't see how our congress, which is essentially bought and paid for, are going to actually go against the wishes of a bunch of billionaires. They may rattle the saber, but I don't think they'd follow through with it, unless it benefited them greatly. I don't see the benefit to them.

 

[iced]

Just get a Democratic congressman to propose taking away exemptions, and it'll never get to the floor.


Honestly I don't see how our congress, which is essentially bought and paid for, are going to actually go against the wishes of a bunch of billionaires. They may rattle the saber, but I don't think they'd follow through with it, unless it benefited them greatly. I don't see the benefit to them.

NFL must have felt differently,otherwise I don't think they would have changed their black out policy.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

You may not think its credible - I believe the NFL definitely does.


And for whatever its worth, its the one thing my old man (Law Professor, Business/Corporate law) keeps reiterating to me as a point of emphasis. And with how quickly the NFL lapsed on their black out rule gives that more credence, imo.

 

[The Ripper]

NFL must have felt differently,otherwise I don't think they would have changed their black out policy.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

You may not think its credible - I believe the NFL definitely does.


And for whatever its worth, its the one thing my old man (Law Professor, Business/Corporate law) keeps reiterating to me as a point of emphasis. And with how quickly the NFL lapsed on their black out rule gives that more credence, imo.

They have been discussing doing away with it for years because vod and the other different ways to view games. Also, tv revenues decrease for blacked out games and the league makes more money from tv than from gate receipts. The other factor is the potential for one or more lame duck teams. Congress talks a good game but nothing every gets done. Just go back to any of the times the NFL has been to Congress and see the what the rhetoric was at the time and compare it to now. This is nothing comparatively to any of the others.

For the record Congress has over the last 50 years threatened the NFL multiple times to end the limited antitrust exemption.

 

[RAMSinLA]

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/201...nots-about-teams-possible-move-to-los-angeles

"Rams are legally free agents no longer bound to a specific market."

 

[RamFan503]

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

 

[RamFan503]

NFL must have felt differently,otherwise I don't think they would have changed their black out policy.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

You may not think its credible - I believe the NFL definitely does.


And for whatever its worth, its the one thing my old man (Law Professor, Business/Corporate law) keeps reiterating to me as a point of emphasis. And with how quickly the NFL lapsed on their black out rule gives that more credence, imo.

I mentioned before Iced that the blackout rule was an FCC rule until 2014. The NFL suspended the practice to coincide with the FCC ending their rule. It is suspended yet still in the NFL bylaws and guidelines. So in essence, the NFL has not ended it's blackout rule. The FCC did. I know where you cited an article about Congressional pressure to do so but Congress has carped about that many times on behalf of their constituents. If this was a real fear of the NFL, why would they leave it intact and only suspend the practice? And why would the FCC have kept their rule in place all these years if Congress was that serious about it? Sorry - but I don't buy that it was a huge deal or even a real threat to the NFL nor its anti-trust exemptions. It just doesn't hold water.

 

[iced]

I mentioned before Iced that the blackout rule was an FCC rule until 2014. The NFL suspended the practice to coincide with the FCC ending their rule. It is suspended yet still in the NFL bylaws and guidelines. So in essence, the NFL has not ended it's blackout rule. The FCC did. I know where you cited an article about Congressional pressure to do so but Congress has carped about that many times on behalf of their constituents. If this was a real fear of the NFL, why would they leave it intact and only suspend the practice? And why would the FCC have kept their rule in place all these years if Congress was that serious about it? Sorry - but I don't buy that it was a huge deal or even a real threat to the NFL nor its anti-trust exemptions. It just doesn't hold water.

No, the FCC did not get rid of all black outs entirely, hence the reason why the congress kept threatening them even after the fact.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-sports-blackout-rules

Today’s action may not eliminate all sports blackouts, because the NFL may choose to continue its private blackout policy. However, the NFL will no longer be entitled to the protection of the Commission’s sports blackout rules. Instead, the NFL must rely on the same avenues available to otherentities that wish to protect their distribution rights in the private marketplace

Like I said, it was written into their TV contracts
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000480822/article/nfl-suspends-local-blackout-policy-for-2015

The Federal Communications Commission also came out recently against the blackout policy. In September 2014, the FCC repealed its sport blackout rules. The order eliminated FCC reinforcement of the league's blackout policy, but it did not affect the league's ability to maintain and enforce the blackout policy through contractual arrangements with programming distributors.

and here, again after the timeline of everything you've said (their ruling was September 30, 2014; everything i have mentioned has been as Recent as December 2014)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...blackout-rule-risk-losing-antitrust-exemption

Senators from both parties warned the National Football League on Thursday to get rid of a four-decade-old TV "blackout'' rule or risk congressional action to restrict the league's lucrative antitrust exemption, which allows NFL teams to negotiate radio and television broadcast rights together.

They have been discussing doing away with it for years because vod and the other different ways to view games. Also, tv revenues decrease for blacked out games and the league makes more money from tv than from gate receipts. The other factor is the potential for one or more lame duck teams. Congress talks a good game but nothing every gets done. Just go back to any of the times the NFL has been to Congress and see the what the rhetoric was at the time and compare it to now. This is nothing comparatively to any of the others.

For the record Congress has over the last 50 years threatened the NFL multiple times to end the limited antitrust exemption.

The NFL doesn't lose money if it blacks out a game - their TV and broadcast contracts are negotiated ahead of time; its not fluid like ticket sales revenue which is week to week.

 

[The Ripper]

The NFL doesn't lose money if it blacks out a game - their TV and broadcast contracts are negotiated ahead of time; its not fluid like ticket sales and revenue which is week to week.

They do adjust up and down for blacked out games. It;s always been that way. The contracts also adjust for teams that relocate. The Rams had to reimburse the league 50% of the loss from the FOX tv contract. The Raiders relocation didn't require reimbursement to because even though Oakland was a smaller market the a majority of their games were blacked out in LA so the tv revenues increased.

 

[Goose]

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?

I agree but none of those other cities have a viable stadium plan or public funds. If you relocate the Chargers and Raiders you are still able to reach to one of those other fan bases from LA. If the Rams move then the team that get left out in the cold will more than likely not get a new stadium forcing them to relocate. Losing the original home market and then you have to start over. Since the Rams have a strong fan base outside of California and what appears to a viable stadium plan it make more sense for the Rams to work it out in their current market. The success of the NFL is predicated on doing what is best for the league not individual teams. That is why the share revenue and imposed a salary cap. This model has produced the most balance and competition across the league. At face value if the Rams relocate you are effectively screwing one of the teams in essentially hurting the league.

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.

The NFL wants public funds and when teams are having difficulty getting those funds the magic bullet they use in the treat of relocation. If the NFL walks away from public money then why would those cities take the threat of relocating seriously? TB, Jax, and Carolina are the next group of teams that will angle for upgrades or a new stadium. While Jax is in the lease until 2030 they have outs after 2020. I am in no way saying that the teams will not accept public funds, I am saying that those cities will be more likely to refuse to provide funds. If I am a city that is being leveraged I am going to use the fact that the NFL walked away from public funds in another stadium situation.

 

[iced]

They do adjust up and down for blacked out games. It;s always been that way. The contracts also adjust for teams that relocate. The Rams had to reimburse the league 50% of the loss from the FOX tv contract. The Raiders relocation didn't require reimbursement to because even though Oakland was a smaller market the a majority of their games were blacked out in LA so the tv revenues increased.

You have a source or anything on this? This is the closest I could find

Team owners have passed a resolution that starting this season will allow for local broadcasts of NFL games even when as few as 85% of tickets are sold. Under the new rule, each team has more flexibility to establish its own seat-sales benchmark as long as it is 85% or higher. To discourage teams from setting easy benchmarks, teams will be forced to share more of the revenue when they exceed it.