mr.stlouis
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,454
- Name
- Main Hook
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
TSFH Fan
Epic Music Guy
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,473
Local human interest piece. But I didn't see it on regular Stltoday site. So if this is a ToS vio. (or has been already posted), please accept my apologies and delete. Dug it out of the google cache.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-6203fdf3053f.html+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Stadium site has obstacles easy to overlook
8 hours ago • By Tim Bryant, David Hunn
ST. LOUIS • The 35 square blocks are striking in their emptiness.
From a helicopter 2,500 feet above the Mississippi River, the site of the proposed football stadium on the north riverfront is a patchwork of asphalt and dirt, punctuated by derelict, century-old warehouses.
But from the street, it takes on a different feel.
Among the rubble-strewn roads and overgrown lots is infrastructure important to the city’s rail and electricity networks.
Businesses scattered across the 90 acres include a steakhouse considered a St. Louis institution, a biker bar with an international following and a supplier of wood used in some of the world’s finest guitars.
Moving it all is certainly possible, nearly all involved agree. But to get it done, some add, could take more time and money than planners estimate.
Standing in the way are a major rail line and giant power lines that would have to be relocated. In addition, a flood wall runs the length of the property, protecting two historic districts whose buildings require government approval to demolish.
“It could, potentially, be more complicated than they think it is,” said Andrew Weil, director of Landmarks Association of St. Louis, a historic preservation nonprofit group.
The plan, revealed this month by Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man team, would raze the few buildings left here, and replace them with a 64,000-seat, open-air arena rising just feet from the Mississippi — plus a sea of 10,000 parking spaces — costing as much as $985 million in total.
The proposal’s authors, Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch executive David Peacock, have promised to save just one building: the old Union Electric Power & Light building.
The endgame? St. Louis keeps its National Football League franchise, and, perhaps, adds a Major League Soccer team, too.
“We wouldn’t have announced the plan if we weren’t given assurances that it can be done,” Peacock said.
But remnants of 19th-century industry on the St. Louis riverfront — such as the “Mound City Buggy Company” sign painted on the side of a brick building at North Broadway and Cass Avenue — would turn into parking for tailgaters.
The area’s most visible business is Shady Jack’s, a biker bar that through word of mouth and social media has fans worldwide. Owner Jack Larrison, 70, realizes that despite his bar’s popularity, his business might be forced out.
“Big guys come to town and they are given a golden bow tie and a ribbon cutting,” he said. “Now it looks like they’re going to try to skin me.”
Shady Jack’s is in a building that was condemned when Larrison bought it nearly 15 years ago. He built his bar and later added a restaurant, tattoo parlor and gift shop in adjoining buildings now part of a national historic district on North Broadway. Larrison said he won’t fight the stadium project if it appears headed toward reality.
“I’m a reasonable guy,” Larrison said, but he added he’s built a thriving business on what had been a largely deserted street.
Down the block is Hibdon Hardwood, which has been on North Broadway since the early 1990s. From a humidity-controlled storeroom, Hibdon sells African blackwood, Mexican cocobolo, Honduran mahogany and other exotic wood to acoustic guitar makers ranging from hobbyists to top-line builders such as Collings and C.F. Martin.
Jerry Hibdon, the company’s general manager, said relocating would be a huge undertaking. Like other building owners in the area, he said he had heard nothing from stadium backers about acquiring property.
“Right now, it’s all speculation,” he said.
Also threatened by the stadium plan is Al’s Restaurant, a family-owned steakhouse that has been on Biddle Street for 90 years. Owner Pam Neal, whose grandparents opened the restaurant, said Al’s “is a family labor of love.”
“If someday we close, we’d say we have had a good run, but that’s something I’d want on my own terms,” Neal said. “I guess we’ll see what the future brings.”
Nixon’s stadium task force chose the north riverfront site because of its central location for bistate fans, plus access to highways and MetroLink. A boost to downtown also was a factor.
The plan estimates $90 million to $110 million for site acquisition and preparation. Whether that’s enough to deal with the site’s obstacles is unclear.
RAILS, POWER & WATER
Bisecting the site is a rail line owned by the Terminal Railroad Association.
The line carries about 15 freight trains daily and provides an essential link between the MacArthur and Merchants bridges over the Mississippi. Amtrak uses the line as a secondary route for its passenger trains over the river.
Under the redevelopment plan, the rail line would have to swerve around the stadium’s west side. Walkways built over the line would connect the stadium to parking lots.
“This is a doable project,” Mike McCarthy, president of the railroad, said. He didn’t discuss costs.
McCarthy said that operating freight trains, even those that carry hazardous material, near the stadium would not be a major concern. The same line uses tunnels and deep cuts on the Arch grounds. McCarthy pointed out that a railyard sits just south of Busch Stadium.
He added: “We want to be a good partner. I would say we would not be the biggest headache.”
A bigger one might be the presence of an Ameren Missouri substation that fills a block within the stadium area. An Ameren spokesman said the substation is used to distribute electrical service downtown. The substation also is connected to large power lines that cross the river.
Peacock has said the substation would remain. As currently positioned, the large power lines connected to the substation pass directly over the stadium site. Peacock has said those lines would be relocated.
Dave Wakeman, Ameren Missouri’s senior vice president of operations and technical service, didn’t address line relocation.
In an emailed statement, he responded only that the utility “has always cooperated with developers and planners on projects that would impact the future of a region.”
Another issue facing stadium development is the project’s site next to the Mississippi. The city’s floodwall protects the area, but any development on or over flood-control structures could require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, spokesman Mike Peterson said.
As proposed, the stadium project would include a floating riverfront trail and boat docks.
Peterson said the plan had yet to reach a point where the corps could determine whether permits would be required.
‘I’M A LITTLE GUY’
Before rumors of a riverfront stadium began circulating months ago, city officials were looking at ways to revitalize the area.
Property owners met last week with city and regional agency officials regarding a study of economic development opportunities along the north riverfront.
Owners, more in ball caps and work boots than suits and ties, were largely skeptical of development promises. They said they’d heard them before. Still, when they talked about the possibility of stadium buyouts, most said they’d be happy to sell, for the right price.
In some cases, economics work against building renovation, owners said. Mark Schulte, co-owner of the Cotton Belt building, noted that the long concrete warehouse — now with a colorful mural visible from the Musial Bridge — has long been promoted as a residential loft project.
“I can’t renovate it. I don’t have the means,” he said. “I’m a little guy.”
So a stadium — a good one that would stand the test of time — would be welcome, Schulte said.
Rob Reese, owner of Gateway Restaurant & Bar Equipment, said the area “looks pretty crummy right now.” His business would be demolished for stadium parking.
“If they’d like to move in there, that’d be all right with me,” Reese said. “I think everybody’s excited about it.”
Not everybody.
John Sweet, trustee of the William A. Kerr Foundation, spent $2.5 million to renovate his O’Fallon Street building to include a garden roof, solar panels and a windmill.
“I have been supportive of something happening in that area, besides what I’ve done, for the last 10 years,” Sweet said.
“Obviously, if there’s a new stadium, I’m squished.”
But he also didn’t believe he could stop it.
“If they get all the financing together, I don’t think any property owner would be allowed to stay put,” Sweet said.
Among the old buildings already for sale is a five-story warehouse built in 1903 at 1230 North First Street. Patrick McKay, the Hilliker Corp. agent who has the listing, said the warehouse was occupied until three months ago and “is in nice shape.” The asking price is $475,000.
“That’s dirt cheap, literally,” he said.
The stadium proposal puts potential sales in doubt, McKay said. The day before the stadium plan was made public, he showed the building to a loft developer.
“Does he move forward or is he at a standstill?” McKay said.
Renderings of the stadium project include a cleaned-up Union Electric Light & Power plant, a mammoth brick and terra cotta structure built next to the river to provide electricity to the 1904 World’s Fair in Forest Park. Stadium backers envision using the building as a team store.
The plant’s giant coal-fired boilers are long gone, and its huge coal bins sit empty, but the building still houses modern natural gas-fired turbines that heat water and produce steam for about 100 customers downtown.
“It’s the central heating plant for downtown,” said Joe Voboril, general manager for the facility’s current owner, Trigen-St. Louis Energy Corp.
He said he was unaware of any formal talks to make the plant part of the stadium project.
The plant is within the federal North Riverfront Historical District.
Weil, the Landmarks Association director, said that while the stadium site is largely parking lots and empty buildings, it includes two national historic districts and several buildings listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. Demolishing them might require review by city, state and federal agencies, he said. Some buildings could be incorporated into the stadium project, Weil added.
“For instance, the block on the east side of Broadway is completely intact,” he said. “Why not save it and let those buildings serve as bars and restaurants for football fans? Isn’t that what Ballpark Village is trying to re-create near Busch Stadium?”
A historic north riverfront building that would have to make way for stadium parking is Stamping Lofts — 56 studio apartments completed less than two years ago for ex-offenders. The $9.8 million project to redo an 1870 factory got low-income housing tax credits, federal historic preservation tax credits, federal New Markets Tax Credits and tax abatement.
Just south of the stadium site is the Lumière Place casino and hotel complex. Bordering the site on the north is the new headquarters of Bissinger’s chocolates. Leaders of both businesses said they hope the stadium gets built.
Tim Petron, Bissinger’s chief operations officer, said the company’s aim in renovating an old freight depot was to anchor the neighborhood with new commerce.
“We never thought it would happen this fast,” he said.
Talk of a new stadium is exciting, said Petron, adding it could be used for concerts as well as football and soccer.
Jeff Babinski, Lumière’s vice president and general manager, said he, too, is excited by the stadium plan.
“I want to keep football here in St. Louis,” said Babinski, a member of the St. Louis Sports Commission. “We want to see a stadium. We don’t want to see a team leave.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-6203fdf3053f.html+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Stadium site has obstacles easy to overlook
8 hours ago • By Tim Bryant, David Hunn
ST. LOUIS • The 35 square blocks are striking in their emptiness.
From a helicopter 2,500 feet above the Mississippi River, the site of the proposed football stadium on the north riverfront is a patchwork of asphalt and dirt, punctuated by derelict, century-old warehouses.
But from the street, it takes on a different feel.
Among the rubble-strewn roads and overgrown lots is infrastructure important to the city’s rail and electricity networks.
Businesses scattered across the 90 acres include a steakhouse considered a St. Louis institution, a biker bar with an international following and a supplier of wood used in some of the world’s finest guitars.
Moving it all is certainly possible, nearly all involved agree. But to get it done, some add, could take more time and money than planners estimate.
Standing in the way are a major rail line and giant power lines that would have to be relocated. In addition, a flood wall runs the length of the property, protecting two historic districts whose buildings require government approval to demolish.
“It could, potentially, be more complicated than they think it is,” said Andrew Weil, director of Landmarks Association of St. Louis, a historic preservation nonprofit group.
The plan, revealed this month by Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man team, would raze the few buildings left here, and replace them with a 64,000-seat, open-air arena rising just feet from the Mississippi — plus a sea of 10,000 parking spaces — costing as much as $985 million in total.
The proposal’s authors, Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch executive David Peacock, have promised to save just one building: the old Union Electric Power & Light building.
The endgame? St. Louis keeps its National Football League franchise, and, perhaps, adds a Major League Soccer team, too.
“We wouldn’t have announced the plan if we weren’t given assurances that it can be done,” Peacock said.
But remnants of 19th-century industry on the St. Louis riverfront — such as the “Mound City Buggy Company” sign painted on the side of a brick building at North Broadway and Cass Avenue — would turn into parking for tailgaters.
The area’s most visible business is Shady Jack’s, a biker bar that through word of mouth and social media has fans worldwide. Owner Jack Larrison, 70, realizes that despite his bar’s popularity, his business might be forced out.
“Big guys come to town and they are given a golden bow tie and a ribbon cutting,” he said. “Now it looks like they’re going to try to skin me.”
Shady Jack’s is in a building that was condemned when Larrison bought it nearly 15 years ago. He built his bar and later added a restaurant, tattoo parlor and gift shop in adjoining buildings now part of a national historic district on North Broadway. Larrison said he won’t fight the stadium project if it appears headed toward reality.
“I’m a reasonable guy,” Larrison said, but he added he’s built a thriving business on what had been a largely deserted street.
Down the block is Hibdon Hardwood, which has been on North Broadway since the early 1990s. From a humidity-controlled storeroom, Hibdon sells African blackwood, Mexican cocobolo, Honduran mahogany and other exotic wood to acoustic guitar makers ranging from hobbyists to top-line builders such as Collings and C.F. Martin.
Jerry Hibdon, the company’s general manager, said relocating would be a huge undertaking. Like other building owners in the area, he said he had heard nothing from stadium backers about acquiring property.
“Right now, it’s all speculation,” he said.
Also threatened by the stadium plan is Al’s Restaurant, a family-owned steakhouse that has been on Biddle Street for 90 years. Owner Pam Neal, whose grandparents opened the restaurant, said Al’s “is a family labor of love.”
“If someday we close, we’d say we have had a good run, but that’s something I’d want on my own terms,” Neal said. “I guess we’ll see what the future brings.”
Nixon’s stadium task force chose the north riverfront site because of its central location for bistate fans, plus access to highways and MetroLink. A boost to downtown also was a factor.
The plan estimates $90 million to $110 million for site acquisition and preparation. Whether that’s enough to deal with the site’s obstacles is unclear.
RAILS, POWER & WATER
Bisecting the site is a rail line owned by the Terminal Railroad Association.
The line carries about 15 freight trains daily and provides an essential link between the MacArthur and Merchants bridges over the Mississippi. Amtrak uses the line as a secondary route for its passenger trains over the river.
Under the redevelopment plan, the rail line would have to swerve around the stadium’s west side. Walkways built over the line would connect the stadium to parking lots.
“This is a doable project,” Mike McCarthy, president of the railroad, said. He didn’t discuss costs.
McCarthy said that operating freight trains, even those that carry hazardous material, near the stadium would not be a major concern. The same line uses tunnels and deep cuts on the Arch grounds. McCarthy pointed out that a railyard sits just south of Busch Stadium.
He added: “We want to be a good partner. I would say we would not be the biggest headache.”
A bigger one might be the presence of an Ameren Missouri substation that fills a block within the stadium area. An Ameren spokesman said the substation is used to distribute electrical service downtown. The substation also is connected to large power lines that cross the river.
Peacock has said the substation would remain. As currently positioned, the large power lines connected to the substation pass directly over the stadium site. Peacock has said those lines would be relocated.
Dave Wakeman, Ameren Missouri’s senior vice president of operations and technical service, didn’t address line relocation.
In an emailed statement, he responded only that the utility “has always cooperated with developers and planners on projects that would impact the future of a region.”
Another issue facing stadium development is the project’s site next to the Mississippi. The city’s floodwall protects the area, but any development on or over flood-control structures could require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, spokesman Mike Peterson said.
As proposed, the stadium project would include a floating riverfront trail and boat docks.
Peterson said the plan had yet to reach a point where the corps could determine whether permits would be required.
‘I’M A LITTLE GUY’
Before rumors of a riverfront stadium began circulating months ago, city officials were looking at ways to revitalize the area.
Property owners met last week with city and regional agency officials regarding a study of economic development opportunities along the north riverfront.
Owners, more in ball caps and work boots than suits and ties, were largely skeptical of development promises. They said they’d heard them before. Still, when they talked about the possibility of stadium buyouts, most said they’d be happy to sell, for the right price.
In some cases, economics work against building renovation, owners said. Mark Schulte, co-owner of the Cotton Belt building, noted that the long concrete warehouse — now with a colorful mural visible from the Musial Bridge — has long been promoted as a residential loft project.
“I can’t renovate it. I don’t have the means,” he said. “I’m a little guy.”
So a stadium — a good one that would stand the test of time — would be welcome, Schulte said.
Rob Reese, owner of Gateway Restaurant & Bar Equipment, said the area “looks pretty crummy right now.” His business would be demolished for stadium parking.
“If they’d like to move in there, that’d be all right with me,” Reese said. “I think everybody’s excited about it.”
Not everybody.
John Sweet, trustee of the William A. Kerr Foundation, spent $2.5 million to renovate his O’Fallon Street building to include a garden roof, solar panels and a windmill.
“I have been supportive of something happening in that area, besides what I’ve done, for the last 10 years,” Sweet said.
“Obviously, if there’s a new stadium, I’m squished.”
But he also didn’t believe he could stop it.
“If they get all the financing together, I don’t think any property owner would be allowed to stay put,” Sweet said.
Among the old buildings already for sale is a five-story warehouse built in 1903 at 1230 North First Street. Patrick McKay, the Hilliker Corp. agent who has the listing, said the warehouse was occupied until three months ago and “is in nice shape.” The asking price is $475,000.
“That’s dirt cheap, literally,” he said.
The stadium proposal puts potential sales in doubt, McKay said. The day before the stadium plan was made public, he showed the building to a loft developer.
“Does he move forward or is he at a standstill?” McKay said.
Renderings of the stadium project include a cleaned-up Union Electric Light & Power plant, a mammoth brick and terra cotta structure built next to the river to provide electricity to the 1904 World’s Fair in Forest Park. Stadium backers envision using the building as a team store.
The plant’s giant coal-fired boilers are long gone, and its huge coal bins sit empty, but the building still houses modern natural gas-fired turbines that heat water and produce steam for about 100 customers downtown.
“It’s the central heating plant for downtown,” said Joe Voboril, general manager for the facility’s current owner, Trigen-St. Louis Energy Corp.
He said he was unaware of any formal talks to make the plant part of the stadium project.
The plant is within the federal North Riverfront Historical District.
Weil, the Landmarks Association director, said that while the stadium site is largely parking lots and empty buildings, it includes two national historic districts and several buildings listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. Demolishing them might require review by city, state and federal agencies, he said. Some buildings could be incorporated into the stadium project, Weil added.
“For instance, the block on the east side of Broadway is completely intact,” he said. “Why not save it and let those buildings serve as bars and restaurants for football fans? Isn’t that what Ballpark Village is trying to re-create near Busch Stadium?”
A historic north riverfront building that would have to make way for stadium parking is Stamping Lofts — 56 studio apartments completed less than two years ago for ex-offenders. The $9.8 million project to redo an 1870 factory got low-income housing tax credits, federal historic preservation tax credits, federal New Markets Tax Credits and tax abatement.
Just south of the stadium site is the Lumière Place casino and hotel complex. Bordering the site on the north is the new headquarters of Bissinger’s chocolates. Leaders of both businesses said they hope the stadium gets built.
Tim Petron, Bissinger’s chief operations officer, said the company’s aim in renovating an old freight depot was to anchor the neighborhood with new commerce.
“We never thought it would happen this fast,” he said.
Talk of a new stadium is exciting, said Petron, adding it could be used for concerts as well as football and soccer.
Jeff Babinski, Lumière’s vice president and general manager, said he, too, is excited by the stadium plan.
“I want to keep football here in St. Louis,” said Babinski, a member of the St. Louis Sports Commission. “We want to see a stadium. We don’t want to see a team leave.”
Sum1
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,604
I follow your logic, but that isn't really true. The leagues bylaws don't state that as long as you have a lease your tied there...that's the law that states that.
For instance, if the Jaguars wanted to move they'd have to break their lease. They'd have to pay a fee to the city of Jacksonville and are bound to that by law.
Though the CVC opted for the lease to expire it doesn't change that the NFL bylaws are written to state that a team must exhaust all options to make their market work, not that once the lease expires.
Again, there seems to be a lot of people confusing the venue with the market.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/
Rooney rattles the legal sword at Kroenke over Rams move
Posted by Mike Florio on January 17, 2015
AP
At a time when Rams owner Stan Kroenke is creating the impression that he’ll move the franchise with or without the blessing of his business partners (and when Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has said Kroenke can do it), the NFL has begun to push back. Somewhat aggressively.
Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chairman of the NFL’s stadium committee, was as blunt as any Rooney ever is when explaining to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times that the league believes Kroenke can’t do whatever he wants when it comes to relocating the Rams.
“I think we’re comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn’t go through the process,” Rooney said. That process ultimately consists of 24 owner votes approving the move, which means that only nine owners can block relocation.
Rooney specifically went on the record with Farmer in order to further undo damage potentially done by Jerry’s Sunday comments to the New York Times — comments that were largely overlooked and ignored given the story lines emerging from the outcome of his team’s game against the Packers.
“I don’t agree with Jerry on that point,” Rooney told Farmer. “The majority view is that there’s a process the teams are going to have to go through, and I think everybody understands that in terms of the teams that may be interested, I expect that the process will be observed, and hopefully it will be an orderly process.”
The “majority view” of the league’s owners, however, would yield to the conclusion of a federal judge applying fairly basic principles of antitrust law.
Unless the antitrust laws have fundamentally changed since the last time the NFL tried to legally stop a team from moving to Los Angeles, that comfort could be misplaced. The argument would be fairly straightforward; the NFL consists of 32 independent businesses that can’t work together to place restrictions on the ability of any one of those independent businesses to take care of its own business, such as the selection of the place where the business will do business.
But the league, which likes to get its way even when applicable law would seem to suggest it won’t, wants to control the process, for multiple reasons. The league wants to be sure that the team is moving to a suitable stadium. The league wants to be sure that all efforts have been made to keep the team where it currently is (by, for example, squeezing as much money out of the taxpayer coffers as possible). Perhaps most importantly, the league wants to be sure that no one tries to move, and fails.
“We don’t want to have a team that gets itself in a situation where it has to file an application and go through a process where at the end of the day it could wind up being a lame duck, or even worse, having to go back to a city it attempted to move from,” Rooney told Farmer.
That’s a telling statement. For starters, it means that the approval process happens behind the scenes, with a team that gets the blessing in the back room to officially apply for relocation process has been guaranteed to get the blessing to move. It also unintentionally confirms the accuracy of Jerry Jones’ belief that teams can move absent the consent of at least 24 total owners, since the NFL doesn’t want a team to stay in a market that an owner has tried and failed to leave.
On that specific point, the damage already has been done. Kroenke, who said nothing about his intentions for years, suddenly announced that he’ll be building a stadium in Los Angeles. At that moment, the Rams became a lame duck in St. Louis. And if the NFL tries to keep him from moving, Kroenke will have to go back to a city where he attempted to move from.
None of that will matter in the end. The league will huff and puff, but Kroenke ultimately will be able to blow his house down in St. Louis. He has the money to wage a dream-team legal battle with the league, and the legal principles and precedents seem to be on his side. If he wants to move, the only question will be how hard the NFL will try stop it from happening before crying, “Uncle.”
Plenty of other owners may not like that, but that’s one of the things that can happen as franchise values continue to go through the roof, making teams purchasable by obscenely rich folks who never will replace a lifetime of me-first with league-first.
Rooney rattles the legal sword at Kroenke over Rams move
Posted by Mike Florio on January 17, 2015
At a time when Rams owner Stan Kroenke is creating the impression that he’ll move the franchise with or without the blessing of his business partners (and when Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has said Kroenke can do it), the NFL has begun to push back. Somewhat aggressively.
Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chairman of the NFL’s stadium committee, was as blunt as any Rooney ever is when explaining to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times that the league believes Kroenke can’t do whatever he wants when it comes to relocating the Rams.
“I think we’re comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn’t go through the process,” Rooney said. That process ultimately consists of 24 owner votes approving the move, which means that only nine owners can block relocation.
Rooney specifically went on the record with Farmer in order to further undo damage potentially done by Jerry’s Sunday comments to the New York Times — comments that were largely overlooked and ignored given the story lines emerging from the outcome of his team’s game against the Packers.
“I don’t agree with Jerry on that point,” Rooney told Farmer. “The majority view is that there’s a process the teams are going to have to go through, and I think everybody understands that in terms of the teams that may be interested, I expect that the process will be observed, and hopefully it will be an orderly process.”
The “majority view” of the league’s owners, however, would yield to the conclusion of a federal judge applying fairly basic principles of antitrust law.
Unless the antitrust laws have fundamentally changed since the last time the NFL tried to legally stop a team from moving to Los Angeles, that comfort could be misplaced. The argument would be fairly straightforward; the NFL consists of 32 independent businesses that can’t work together to place restrictions on the ability of any one of those independent businesses to take care of its own business, such as the selection of the place where the business will do business.
But the league, which likes to get its way even when applicable law would seem to suggest it won’t, wants to control the process, for multiple reasons. The league wants to be sure that the team is moving to a suitable stadium. The league wants to be sure that all efforts have been made to keep the team where it currently is (by, for example, squeezing as much money out of the taxpayer coffers as possible). Perhaps most importantly, the league wants to be sure that no one tries to move, and fails.
“We don’t want to have a team that gets itself in a situation where it has to file an application and go through a process where at the end of the day it could wind up being a lame duck, or even worse, having to go back to a city it attempted to move from,” Rooney told Farmer.
That’s a telling statement. For starters, it means that the approval process happens behind the scenes, with a team that gets the blessing in the back room to officially apply for relocation process has been guaranteed to get the blessing to move. It also unintentionally confirms the accuracy of Jerry Jones’ belief that teams can move absent the consent of at least 24 total owners, since the NFL doesn’t want a team to stay in a market that an owner has tried and failed to leave.
On that specific point, the damage already has been done. Kroenke, who said nothing about his intentions for years, suddenly announced that he’ll be building a stadium in Los Angeles. At that moment, the Rams became a lame duck in St. Louis. And if the NFL tries to keep him from moving, Kroenke will have to go back to a city where he attempted to move from.
None of that will matter in the end. The league will huff and puff, but Kroenke ultimately will be able to blow his house down in St. Louis. He has the money to wage a dream-team legal battle with the league, and the legal principles and precedents seem to be on his side. If he wants to move, the only question will be how hard the NFL will try stop it from happening before crying, “Uncle.”
Plenty of other owners may not like that, but that’s one of the things that can happen as franchise values continue to go through the roof, making teams purchasable by obscenely rich folks who never will replace a lifetime of me-first with league-first.
ReddingRam
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,459
Here is where I see the Anti-trust laws helping Kroenke .... the Pecock/Blitz plan involves "public ownership" and "limited profit opportunities" for SK and the NFL. It would also put the Rams and the NFL into risk at some point of "public failure" ... ie; future lease agreements, gov't reliance on bonds, taxes, etc ... to be able to keep operating into the future. I think America knows all too well the risk of puttting "big ideas" into the hands of municipalities has shown that those municipalities can fail.
Now with SK's plan for L.A. ... there is all private monies...meaning that he and his partners will be the one's sharing their profits with the NFL. There is no public monies needed to build, maintain and operate the project. There is no risk of having to worry about future lease agreements, etc .
No worries about future "public monies" in the forms of bond measures, taxes or even voter approval.
That is where I see the Anti -Trust law helping SK here. The Inglewood situation puts all the risk on him and his business to build, maintain and profit. By putting up all private monies and the ability to show that being able to self finance their project (not to mention a more willing political climate) benefits them ... .IMO.
I really have no dog in this fight. I am a Rams fan regardless of where they are .... but I see it to SK's benefit to go with the L.A. (Inglewood) project. It shoulders him and his group with the sole burden of financial risk/reward ...which to me is exactly how the business should be run. Not burdening tax payers, relying on politicians ans public entities to determine your fate for now .... and into the future.
Now with SK's plan for L.A. ... there is all private monies...meaning that he and his partners will be the one's sharing their profits with the NFL. There is no public monies needed to build, maintain and operate the project. There is no risk of having to worry about future lease agreements, etc .
No worries about future "public monies" in the forms of bond measures, taxes or even voter approval.
That is where I see the Anti -Trust law helping SK here. The Inglewood situation puts all the risk on him and his business to build, maintain and profit. By putting up all private monies and the ability to show that being able to self finance their project (not to mention a more willing political climate) benefits them ... .IMO.
I really have no dog in this fight. I am a Rams fan regardless of where they are .... but I see it to SK's benefit to go with the L.A. (Inglewood) project. It shoulders him and his group with the sole burden of financial risk/reward ...which to me is exactly how the business should be run. Not burdening tax payers, relying on politicians ans public entities to determine your fate for now .... and into the future.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
There may be no bigger tool on TV than the little o. That is one smug, holier than thou, self satisfying windbag as far as I'm concerned. And the examples he stretched to come up with could be said for most large cities. The guy is a fucking elitist douche of the highest degree.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
This is where I think Kroenke is doing himself a disservice. Since he never really announced that he wants to move the team, everyone is in rumor mode. If he would just come out and state his intentions, he could make his own process very easy. If he were to say he's not really looking to move, he could have teams lining up to play in that stadium (if they were so inclined to not own one), and assuage concerns over ticket sales in the Lou while giving the planning commission time to tweak their design with his input. If he were to say he wants to move, then he could turn support against him in an instant and realize the self-fulfilling prophecy of *having* to move due to non-support. He doesn't even have to say he's going to move. All he has to do is say he'd like to.
Right now he's just trying to have his cake and nom it too. The fans in St Louis have all the power now, IMO. They can either make it impossible for him to move, or push him out of town. It all revolves around their support. Buy up all the PSL's, rally support for the planning commission, and sell out all the games in spite of his intentions, and it'll be incredibly hard for him to convince the league that he's losing money there. Or. Turn your backs on him and he'll have a solid case. Because he didn't announce his intentions, he's not really culpable for losing support directly. He can just later say, "As a real estate investor, I just wanted to build a stadium in a market that needed one."
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 11,339
- Name
- Scott
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
Now I want to check out Jack's place.
Not having checked out the area and see really how historic some of the stuff is, most of this sounds kind of typical to a lot of projects - especially along major riverfronts. I don't see much here that the stadium project couldn't work around. Personally, I think it would be really cool if they could incorporate as much of the old stuff as possible into the project.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
However, if the lease is changed substantially, that affects what makes a market work for a team. But we can't know that until if and when the lease negotiations begin or end.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
I think you kind of missed what I was saying though. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, the Rams do opt out of the lease and move.
I agree with you that in a legal sense, the Rams have done nothing wrong so St. Louis has no basis for a breach of contract charge against the Rams.
So then the discussion becomes whether or not the Rams have violated the bylaws. That might not be as slam dunk as you think. If I'm the Rams in this situation, I'm going to argue that we exhausted all REALISTIC options, and that St. Louis was just trying to pointlessly extend the process with 11th hour proposals that had no chance of actually happening. The league might agree with them. Billionaires tend to scratch each other's backs.
But even if the owners do agree the Rams have broken the bylaws, what can they really do? There's no place in St. Louis to force the team to return to as the Rams no longer have the legal rights to play anywhere in St. Louis. Any kind of extreme penalty like taking over the team to force Kroenke to sell or refusing to schedule any games for the Rams would result in Kroenke filing a massive lawsuit against the league that the NFL would likely lose, and any kind of smaller punishment, Stan can pay easily. If you only get charged $750K for massive cheating that directly led to 3 Super Bowls, it's hard to imagine getting charged more than a million for moving YOUR team.
LosAngelesRams
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,092
See, fellas! 37 pages of golden discussion without all the shit flinging like those other sites. Amazing. Good job ROD brothers! 
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
Any response that gets in a jab at the fucking patsies is a WINNER. Can we stop here then?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,830
- Name
- Stu
Very true. I'm very impressed. But I'm still watching you mister.See, fellas! 37 pages of golden discussion without all the crap flinging like those other sites. Amazing. Good job ROD brothers!
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
As long as Cleveland doesn't get the team. Stupid Cleveland. Don't even get me started on London either...See, fellas! 37 pages of golden discussion without all the crap flinging like those other sites. Amazing. Good job ROD brothers!
LosAngelesRams
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,092
Very true. I'm very impressed. But I'm still watching you mister.
You'll never catch me! Muhahaha
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
I know this already, I've said the same several times. My point is that, while Stan may do what he wants, the only way he moves is by violating the bylaws. Despite all the justifications, he has no grounds to say he can't get a deal done. He hasn't exhausted all means. He doesn't even take phone calls. The 200 million he might have to put in isn't a awful proposal. The Raiders owner is willing to do 500 million, and he's not even allowed to live in Kroenke neighborhood money wise. The man bought a team from St Louis that wasn't in financial trouble, with every intention of moving in somewhere else, and with no intention of any kind of even sided negotiations. If, or when, he moves it will be because of his money. And nothing else. If the stadium deal here falls thru, then I'd say he's got justification.
LosAngelesRams
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,092
As long as Cleveland doesn't get the team. Stupid Cleveland. Don't even get me started on London either...
- Status