New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

While I agree with both of these, I still don't see Congress actually getting rid of the league's anti-trust exemptions. Congress does some pretty stupid stuff but this one would not only be difficult to grow legs but would be a fight the NFL would actually spend resources on defeating.

Should be interesting to watch - grab your pop corn.

 

[iced]

Yeah - interesting that John Glenn - one of the most powerful politicians in DC at the time - couldn't even get it out of committee.

you know reading back over this FCC document, I kinda feel like this the gov't giving a subtle warning.

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

The Order finds that the Commission’s sports blackout rules are no longer justified in light of the significant changes in the sports industry since these rules were first adopted nearly forty years ago. At that time, ticket sales were the primary source of revenue for the NFL and most NFL games failed to sell out. Today, television revenues have replaced ticket sales as the NFL’s main source of revenue, and blackouts of NFL games are increasingly rare. The NFL is the most profitable sports league in thecountry, with $6 billion in television revenue per year, and only two games were blacked out last season.

They warn, they don't get rid of it, they posture, NFL quickly reacts and its gone.

 

[RamFan503]

you know reading back over this FCC document, I kinda feel like this the gov't giving a subtle warning.

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


They warn, they don't get rid of it, they posture, NFL quickly reacts and its gone.

I saw that section. I didn't see it as the FCC warning the NFL - just doing a little house cleaning at the behest of some Congressmen. By doing so, it allowed the politicians to rattle their sabers. Wouldn't really mean much if the FCC held onto their ban now would it.

As far as the NFL reacting. They still haven't eliminated blackouts - merely suspended them. I'm guessing so that they can review the issue to see if it is a battle worth fighting or more like lobbying for. Gotta pick your battles and this would be a pretty stupid one for the NFL to just thumb their noses at Congress. Remember - the NFL also enjoys non-profit status. That alone is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. By itself it may not seem that it should matter to the owners as they don't have that status but they have created this monster entity that does almost all of their dirty work and I don't think they are anxious to have that turned on its ear by removing that status.

But with all this, teams relocating may draw unwanted attention but it will also mean voters in one area will be happy while those in another area will be pissed off. Thing is - I highly doubt it rises to anywhere near the level of the domestic violence debacle and even that didn't result in anything but a bit more vigorous saber rattling.

 

[iced]

I saw that section. I didn't see it as the FCC warning the NFL - just doing a little house cleaning at the behest of some Congressmen. By doing so, it allowed the politicians to rattle their sabers. Wouldn't really mean much if the FCC held onto their ban now would it.

As far as the NFL reacting. They still haven't eliminated blackouts - merely suspended them. I'm guessing so that they can review the issue to see if it is a battle worth fighting or more like lobbying for. Gotta pick your battles and this would be a pretty stupid one for the NFL to just thumb their noses at Congress. Remember - the NFL also enjoys non-profit status. That alone is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. By itself it may not seem that it should matter to the owners as they don't have that status but they have created this monster entity that does almost all of their dirty work and I don't think they are anxious to have that turned on its ear by removing that status.

But with all this, teams relocating may draw unwanted attention but it will also mean voters in one area will be happy while those in another area will be pissed off. Thing is - I highly doubt it rises to anywhere near the level of the domestic violence debacle and even that didn't result in anything but a bit more vigorous saber rattling.

At the same time, the TV Market is 60% of their revenue, unlike back in the 90's when it was around 20%. And last years share was around $200 million.

If they threaten their main revenue of course they're gonna give in, for now. Like I said, grab your popcorn. This is gonna be a fun one to watch

 

[RamBill]

Dr. Patrick Rishe, director of sports business at Washington University, joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Wednesday to talk about an article he wrote in Forbes about Tom Brady’s suspension. He also discussed some recent reports on the St. Louis stadium situation.

Listen to Rishe Talk STL Stadium

=====
From the Interview:

Dave Peacock says the taxpayers are on the hook now for $100 million less than previously thought to build a new St. Louis riverfront stadium. Thoughts?

"That's progress. At the end of the day, with the ballot initiatives that have taken place in California...I still feel if I'm Stan Kroenke, I'm going to make that investment in Inglewood and I'm moving the team. The only thing that's going to stop that, in my opinion, is if the league says St. Louis has a solid plan and we can't let you go rogue. That's going to take two things: No. 1. St. Louis to come up with the financials. They're making progress. Certainly better progress than San Diego or Oakland. But even if that's the case, will Kroenke (go ahead and move to Inglewood, anyways)?"

Dave Peacock was quoted as saying he believes the Rams could have different ownership with Stan Kroenke set on the Los Angeles market. What do you think of his quote?

"One of the things (the stadium task force) is going to have to do is making an argument to the league that this can be a football town. We've seen...where there has been excitement. I'm holding out hope that if Dave Peacock can come through, if the Governor can come through, with a plan, that maybe we get the San Diego franchise, we get the Oakland franchise."

 

[RamFan503]

At the same time, the TV Market is 60% of their revenue, unlike back in the 90's when it was around 20%. And last years share was around $200 million.

If they threaten their main revenue of course they're gonna give in, for now. Like I said, grab your popcorn. This is gonna be a fun one to watch

I agree but what happens if they follow through? What is the political backlash then? Wouldn't big market teams suddenly be worth billions more? Does that end the salary cap? I believe it does. Owners wouldn't even be able to get together to negotiate contracts for fear of being prosecuted for collusion - no? The richest owners would control the league. Cats would start marrying dogs. Hell would be pretty chilly.

An old rule is to start with the end in mind. If Congress was serious about ending Pro anti-trust exemptions (and they would have to do it for all) then they would certainly be informed of the end results.

It ain't happening.

 

[iced]

I agree but what happens if they follow through? What is the political backlash then? Wouldn't big market teams suddenly be worth billions more? Does that end the salary cap? I believe it does. Owners wouldn't even be able to get together to negotiate contracts for fear of being prosecuted for collusion - no? The richest owners would control the league. Cats would start marrying dogs. Hell would be pretty chilly.

An old rule is to start with the end in mind. If Congress was serious about ending Pro anti-trust exemptions (and they would have to do it for all) then they would certainly be informed of the end results.

It ain't happening.

they don't have to do it for all. MLB doesn't have a salary cap.

What happens? well they'd lose the ability to negotiate with all tv and radio broadcasting rights for one, with ability or having to compete with each other over rights (Especially teams in the same market). Think of it this way - If you're selling at $40 an hour and I can set my prices at $38 to compete with you, or we can work together and both agree to sell at $100.

Right now they can set it at whatever exorbitant price they want, like Direct TV paying $12 billion for 8 years...

They make more money if they work together.

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: New stadium a plus in bid for soccer
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_1bdb7e2b-bed5-5afc-846f-42655a143f94.html

MLS Commissioner Don Garber is coming to town Tuesday to check the pulse of the St. Louis soccer community.

We can assure the commissioner that it’s positive, judging by the record crowd of 35,817 that watched the U.S. women defeat New Zealand in an April friendly at Busch Stadium.

Or the 54,184 who memorably filled every space at Busch for a festive Chelsea vs. Manchester City friendly in May 2013. And the 54,184 loonies who enjoyed the Real Madrid vs. Inter Milan exhibition at the Edward Jones Dome two months later.

In Fenton, the Saint Louis FC, a first-year USL pro team, is playing to capacity audiences of 5,000 at Soccer Park.

Given the obvious hunger for the beautiful game in a city with a prestigious and celebrated soccer heritage, there’s little doubt St. Louis would embrace an MLS expansion franchise. The immense network of fans spans generations, with an enduring identity cultivated by amateur soccer and decades of participation and passion.

Only three things are missing:

A venue.

Deep-pockets ownership.

And of course the MLS team itself.

While it would be naive to read too much into Garber’s visit, his trek is an encouraging sign that indicates MSL interest in the St. Louis market.

Attracting an MLS team has been a goal of Dave Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch executive who’s leading the effort to build a new NFL stadium on the north St. Louis riverfront.

Keeping St. Louis in the NFL is obviously the prime motivation for the stadium project, but the proposed design includes the flexibility to reconfigure the venue to seat 25,000 for MLS matches.

That seating capacity is in line with the MLS format. And while MLS prefers a soccer-specific venue, the league has multiple teams housed in NFL stadiums and will do it again when Atlanta begins play in two years.

As for ownership, Peacock has told me he’s confident of securing investors to back a St. Louis MLS bid with abundant financial firepower. Peacock traveled to New York in December to brief Garber on the St. Louis plans.

Keeping the Rams or attracting another NFL franchise is Peacock’s top priority, but he’s been planning a couple of moves ahead. As a soccer aficionado and businessman, Peacock believes the presence of an MLS club would enhance the viability of the downtown stadium project. MLS teams play 17 regular-season home games (plus exhibitions) each year.

The busy Peacock couldn’t be reached to comment Wednesday but recently assessed the STL situation in an interview with ESPNFC.com.

“I think frankly it’s hard to sell an NFL stadium for soccer, but I think the way it’s being designed could really work for soccer,” Peacock said. “I think the crowds we would have in St. Louis would surprise people in numbers. It’s at a price point and there’s a passion for the sport. That combination along with what I would think would likely be good local ownership, managing the team profitably, I think you would have the right combination for a successful franchise here.”

The 20-team MLS is expanding to 24 by 2020. Plans call for Atlanta and a second Los Angeles team to enter the league in 2017. Minnesota was tabbed as the 23rd franchise beginning in 2018, and it appears that No. 24 will go to a Miami-based group led by David Beckham.

OK, so where does that leave St. Louis?

Hoping to get in prime position for a future expansion. And with several U.S. markets seeking entry into MLS and the expansion fee reaching $100 million, the league almost certainly will grow.

“In the next six months, we’ve got to come together and develop a plan with our ownership to determine when we go further, because we will,” Garber said during an April meeting with the Associated Press Sports Editors organization. “We will expand this league beyond 24 teams. It’s not an if — it’s a when.”

St. Louis would face competition from Sacramento, San Antonio, Indianapolis and Austin. The size of the St. Louis market, ranked 21st nationally, adds appeal.

Let the campaigning begin. During his diplomatic mission to St. Louis, Garber will meet with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, local business leaders, and STL soccer ambassadors.

Peacock said this is a good opportunity for Garber to get to know some of the key people involved in the St. Louis-MLS initiative. Garber already is familiar with the stadium designs. Now he wants to learn more about the market and gauge the potential level of support.

Garber has repeatedly expressed his fondness for our town’s soccer tradition and has made it clear he’d like to put a team here. But without the necessary venue or wealthy ownership, St. Louis wasn’t a viable option in the past.

That can change, but a new stadium is mandatory. And even if the stadium project gains the required funding, there’s no guarantee of an MLS team coming in. But there is a chance, and St. Louis must prepare to seize an opportunity.

Garber and other MLS executives will attend a fan rally at 4 p.m. Tuesday on the grounds of Ballpark Village. And if you want an MLS team, it’s a good idea to show up and let him know. Transform this baseball village into a soccer village for the day.

Keeping NFL football in St. Louis may be the No. 1 focus right now. But there’s plenty of room, and passion, for MLS futbol.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think we established that about 200 pages ago.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Dr. Patrick Rishe, director of sports business at Washington University, joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Wednesday to talk about an article he wrote in Forbes about Tom Brady’s suspension. He also discussed some recent reports on the St. Louis stadium situation.

Listen to Rishe Talk STL Stadium

=====
From the Interview:

Dave Peacock says the taxpayers are on the hook now for $100 million less than previously thought to build a new St. Louis riverfront stadium. Thoughts?

"That's progress. At the end of the day, with the ballot initiatives that have taken place in California...I still feel if I'm Stan Kroenke, I'm going to make that investment in Inglewood and I'm moving the team. The only thing that's going to stop that, in my opinion, is if the league says St. Louis has a solid plan and we can't let you go rogue. That's going to take two things: No. 1. St. Louis to come up with the financials. They're making progress. Certainly better progress than San Diego or Oakland. But even if that's the case, will Kroenke (go ahead and move to Inglewood, anyways)?"

Dave Peacock was quoted as saying he believes the Rams could have different ownership with Stan Kroenke set on the Los Angeles market. What do you think of his quote?

"One of the things (the stadium task force) is going to have to do is making an argument to the league that this can be a football town. We've seen...where there has been excitement. I'm holding out hope that if Dave Peacock can come through, if the Governor can come through, with a plan, that maybe we get the San Diego franchise, we get the Oakland franchise."

So where is that 100 million coming from now again?

 

[iced]

So where is that 100 million coming from now again?

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/05...d-250-million-toward-stadium-not-350-million/

The St. Louis Business Journal reports while at the Commercial Real Estate

Women of St. Louis Breakfast, Peacock said tax credits and other economic development programs could take $100 million off the public price tag.

What they're asking from an owner and the NFL hasn't changed ($450 million, or $250 and the g4 loan)

 

[RamFan503]

they don't have to do it for all. MLB doesn't have a salary cap.

But they could and me and my fellow restaurateurs, for example, could not

What happens? well they'd lose the ability to negotiate with all tv and radio broadcasting rights for one, with ability or having to compete with each other over rights (Especially teams in the same market). Think of it this way - If you're selling at $40 an hour and I can set my prices at $38 to compete with you, or we can work together and both agree to sell at $100.

Right now they can set it at whatever exorbitant price they want, like Direct TV paying $12 billion for 8 years...

They make more money if they work together.

But they couldn't work together so it would be a free for all and some would gain while most would lose. If you have a million fans and someone has 10 million fans, you will be contracted accordingly. You don't think Congress realizes this? You think a Senator from Minnesota or a Congressman from upstate NY is going to buy into ending parity?

 

[iced]

But they couldn't work together so it would be a free for all and some would gain while most would lose. If you have a million fans and someone has 10 million fans, you will be contracted accordingly. You don't think Congress realizes this? You think a Senator from Minnesota or a Congressman from upstate NY is going to buy into ending parity?

you don't think they realize this themselves?

forget battling with each other - negotiate it at the highest price that you can set... competing is not good, they know this.

It's not that congress realizes this - it's that the NFL realizes this.. Again, look at the direct tv contract ($12 billion over 8 years, double their previous contract). That's just direct tv - that's not including other providers that makes their $6 billion in annual TV revenue, which is only increasing every year (hence why the salary cap is constantly increasing).

It's in their best interests to work together

 

[Goose]

You'd have to wonder if Spanos would turn on Davis to do it. Stan wants the market to himself for a few years and Spanos wants equal footing. It can be done but if Carson is real why would Spanos turn his back on the project? I read a bit more of Cole's timeline and he didn't say it was what was going to happen but a possibility depending on how thing progress over the next several months.

 

[The Ripper]

you don't think they realize this themselves?

forget battling with each other - negotiate it at the highest price that you can set... competing is not good, they know this.

It's not that congress realizes this - it's that the NFL realizes this.. Again, look at the direct tv contract ($12 billion over 8 years, double their previous contract). That's just direct tv - that's not including other providers that makes their $6 billion in annual TV revenue, which is only increasing every year (hence why the salary cap is constantly increasing).

It's in their best interests to work together

Yes, there are a few recent articles with Congress threatening the NFL go back to the articles from 1995 & 1996 there was a general outrage in multiple cities all over the country. It wasn't just a handful of senators and congressman. The same back in 2005 with PED's. Politicians grandstanding is all for show there's just not the support for ending the exemption. The other thing is that the NFL has been looking at doing away with this for years before any of threats from congress. Their tv partners and especially DirecTV have been pushing for more interactive services. If they ever do away with blackouts it will because of increased revenue opportunities not Congress.

 

[The Ripper]

You'd have to wonder if Spanos would turn on Davis to do it. Stan wants the market to himself for a few years and Spanos wants equal footing. It can be done but if Carson is real why would Spanos turn his back on the project? I read a bit more of Cole's timeline and he didn't say it was what was going to happen but a possibility depending on how thing progress over the next several months.

It's because the viability of Carson has come into question on multiple fronts. CSAG has been saying all along that Carson was a bluff so I think that they wanted to show that the Chargers could move into Inglewood if nothing gets done in SD. Multiple ways to look at it both teams at once or this may give the Chargers more time to get something down in SD if that's what Spanos wants. Stan may want LA to himself but he will need to make concessions to get to LA if that's his plan.

 

[Hacksaw]

........ Multiple ways to look at it both teams at once or this may give the Chargers more time to get something down in SD if that's what Spanos wants. Stan may want LA to himself but he will need to make concessions to get to LA if that's his plan.

Ripper, I think you hit the nail on the head..

 

[RamFan503]

you don't think they realize this themselves?

forget battling with each other - negotiate it at the highest price that you can set... competing is not good, they know this.

It's not that congress realizes this - it's that the NFL realizes this.. Again, look at the direct tv contract ($12 billion over 8 years, double their previous contract). That's just direct tv - that's not including other providers that makes their $6 billion in annual TV revenue, which is only increasing every year (hence why the salary cap is constantly increasing).

It's in their best interests to work together

Of course the NFL realizes this. It's in their best interest to work together, no doubt. But what interest is it for Congress to end parity? Sure it is monopolistic and therefore makes the NFL more money, But without it they can't collude to keep equality among franchises. What Congressman not hailing from NY City, LA, Chicago, or Houston is going to want that?

 

[RamFan503]

they don't have to do it for all. MLB doesn't have a salary cap.

BTW - No court in the land is going to uphold a law change that strips one sport of this exemption and not the rest. It wouldn't hold up unless they ended the exemptions - period. Congress can carp and bluster all they want but that's as far as it's going.

Teams have moved cities in all pro sports. Baseball CHOOSES not to implement a salary cap. MLB chooses to allow regional broadcasts in addition to their league negotiated contracts. Basketball does the same. Likely because there are so many games. I believe hockey does as well.

 

[bluecoconuts]

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/05...d-250-million-toward-stadium-not-350-million/




What they're asking from an owner and the NFL hasn't changed ($450 million, or $250 and the g4 loan)

Yeah I get that, I'm just not sure how it all works. Then someone was talking about beer and hotdogs.. I'm not an economist, so I'm a bit lost. Does someone have to pay and then they get that money back? Who pays?