New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

The top 25% was subjective on a number of different levels. The Rams included a retractable roof for example, which was NOT necessary to achieve top 25%.

They included expanding concourses, entry points, etc. All which were part of their "wish list" but in now way were pertinent to achieving "top tier". So to answer your question, they absolutely could have come in with a "lesser" proposal and still met the SUBJECTIVE criteria for top tier.

On top of all that, The Rams "proposal" (and I use that term loosely) didn't even include a financing break down of who was chipping in what or how much, not to mention if they'd contribute anything at all... didn't even mention tapping in to the G4 Loans..

talk about being insincere...

imagine if a city had made an offer like that to an owner or the NFL - they'd just laugh at them.

 

[The Ripper]

On top of all that, The Rams "proposal" (and I use that term loosely) didn't even include a financing break down of who was chipping in what or how much, not to mention if they'd contribute anything at all... didn't even mention tapping in to the G4 Loans..

talk about being insincere...

imagine if a city had made an offer like that to an owner or the NFL - they'd just laugh at them.

The lease did not require the Rams to pay anything so why would they offer to in arbitration.

 

[Hacksaw]

it appears the arbiters disagreed coachO.
you are correct that it is entirely subjective. So isn't making a point about concourses and retractable roofs also subjective? I will agree that Stan asked for more than he expected to get, but I never saw a counteroffer.
Still as it is appeared for nearly half a decade now Mr Kroenke wants a better stadium and more than likely he wants it in LA.
also abundantly clear that you guys in St Louis are more than glad to hold Mr K against his will if possible.
all of our arguments and counter arguments are likely pointless as they will likely have no bearing on what the league actually does.
good luck to everyone

 

[RamFan503]

From merely a strict interpretation of the lease, you are correct. Although, a strong argument can be made that the Rams played to the loophole in the clause by proposing something that was so outrageous that they knew it would never be approved.

The arbitrator was in a position of "all or nothing" when making the ruling. If the Rams were more "reasonable" in their interpretation, we wouldn't be where we are. Bottom line for me, this all played out exactly how the Rams envisioned, they wanted a new facility. PERIOD. They knew the only way to ensure that was to force the hand of the CVC and propose something so outrageous it had zero chance of being accepted.

Again, by the strict interpretation, they did nothing outside of the scope here. But we then go back to the negotiate in "good faith" argument that is much more subjective in league circles.

The real problem I have with this is if you look back to 2005 and up until shortly after the Rams agreed to waive the 2005 top tier status clause, members (I assume more than Dan Dierdorf but at least him) were warning the CVC that they needed to work on funding a renovation or a new stadium. Dan knew then that they would be talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And he said then that the city could likely lose the Rams if they didn't do something.

The lease did not prohibit the CVC from negotiating a solution to the pending stadium issue or working on other solutions. No lease can do that as long as it is being done by the parties included in the lease. They definitely could have been working on something to fix the problem everyone saw coming.

The Rams offered up what I would agree was a pie in the sky plan to remodel the Dome. So the CVC's answer is to give the arbitrators no choice but to side with it anyway? To me, that is really poor business practice and really demonstrated how much they were willing to put forward to fulfilling their end of the contract.

If we wouldn't be here if the Rams were more reasonable, where would we be if the CVC wasn't so unreasonable? I have read numerous accounts that the CVC and city leaders felt like they held all the power and were not open to meaningful modifications to the dome. Unfortunately, we will likely never know how the conversations between Stan's people and the CVC really went.

What we do know is that the CVC negotiated a lease that was bad for St Louis. Shaw was on the stadium committee at the time so he had inside information that the CVC was desperate and ready to offer the kingdom. Unfortunately they did. But I suppose if they didn't, they likely would not have the Rams and we wouldn't be 375 pages into a thread about relocation.

See, that is where the disconnect lies. They didn't PROMISE anything. The part of the lease that included the "top tier" clause was just that. And IF they were unable to meet that very subjective definition, they had the right to excercise, within the terms of the lease, the option to void the remaining years and go year to year.

Not sure how you can really say this. Who puts benchmarks into a lease that they have no intention to uphold? And if they did, isn't that starting out in bad faith? When you put something in a lease, you are promising to fulfill it to the best of your ability.

I haven't read the lease in a while and I never did read every word but IIRR, the top tier wording includes the word "SHALL". I'm sure anyone who has dealt with contracts or legal issues can tell you what that word means.

It's true that the opt out is in there and therefor would eliminate the potential for breach. But it would be to everyone's expectation that that clause would be met. Otherwise you would be putting forth a ten year lease with the hope that the team renews even though you didn't live up to your end. In ten years, the team did in essence renew but with added conditions. The CVC negotiated and agreed to not only get to that top tier status but give a progress report and plan of action by 2012. Upon which time, they offered what they knew wasn't even in the ballpark.

Personally, I didn't want the Rams to leave LA and I don't want them to now leave St Louis. But the idea that Stan is the only reason we are here discussing this is wrong. The CVC has played a big part in this situation.

 

[CoachO]

The lease did not require the Rams to pay anything so why would they offer to in arbitration.

....no it did not. But throughout the entire process, the one constant commentary from the Rams (Demoff) was they wanted this to be a partnership, and the Rams were MORE THAN WILLING to contribute their "fair share". But when it came down to it, it appears to have been lip service.

I am amused at how many people continue to say that the CVC taking this to arbitration somehow irritated Kroenke, and is what caused him to look at LA. When in fact, I maintain, that was exactly what he wanted to happen. So please let's stop making Kroenke out as the poor mistreated victim in all of this. This has never been about the top tier clause in the lease. It has always been about the process, in order to get a new facility. And they knew how the game would be played out years ago. I was in the room when Demoff spelled it all out.

Until the NFL approves the relocation of the STL Rams, and the moving trucks show up, I won't believe this is a "done deal" like many seem to. At the end of the day, if the Riverfront Stadium continues to be a viable option, it will be THE option.

 

[RamFan503]

Yea, I'm sure other owners look at that offer and believe it was "Realistic" or "in good faith"

You mean like they are going to view the $60 million cap? I'm sure a bunch of billionaires see that as a realistic and good faith offer.

 

[CoachO]

it appears the arbiters disagreed coachO.
you are correct that it is entirely subjective. So isn't making a point about concourses and retractable roofs also subjective? I will agree that Stan asked for more than he expected to get, but I never saw a counteroffer.
Still as it is appeared for nearly half a decade now Mr Kroenke wants a better stadium and more than likely he wants it in LA.
also abundantly clear that you guys in St Louis are more than glad to hold Mr K against his will if possible.
all of our arguments and counter arguments are likely pointless as they will likely have no bearing on what the league actually does.
good luck to everyone

You are missing the entire point here. Until this went to arbitration, NOTHING could be done. What I am suggesting, is this caught no one by surprise. Both the CVC and the Rams were bound by the lease, and neither party was legally able to look into ANY other options until that process played out. The end game has always been about a new facility.

The cloak and dagger part of this whole thing was the LA variable. I doubt seriously either the Rams or the CVC were looking to upgrade the Dome to the extent that the lease required.

But to somehow suggest that this could and would have been avoided if the CVC would just have accepted the arbiter's ruling, is being short sighted IMO.

 

[iced]

The lease did not require the Rams to pay anything so why would they offer to in arbitration.

It shows what it is - a bull shit proposal. Rarely are stadiums renovated or built without assistance from the NFL/owner - and I don't think its happened once over the past decade.

Miami renovation - $400 million, all funded by Ross
Carolina Panthers? - even their initial proposals had them splitting the $250 million with the city
Atlanta Falcons - $1 billion from Arthur Blank, NFL, and PSLS (includes g4 loan), city - $200 million
Jaguars - $20 million from the team, $43 million from the city.

Common theme: No deal is realistic without any money from the owner. add in the fact that Kroenke is the 2nd wealthiest owner in the league, and its complete bull shit to call a proposal legitimate that has no money coming from him while lesser owners are all contributing to their stadiums.

Like I said, good luck in getting the other owners to believe that - especially when he has deeper pockets. Particularly if the proposal is over $200 million (and in the rams case, it was $700-$800 million).

 

[RamBill]

Relocating to Los Angeles could cost Rams half a billion dollars
May 26, 2015, 12:55pm CDT
By Brian Feldt
St. Louis Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...ng-to-los-angeles-could-cost-rams-half-a.html

The National Football League has hired an outside consulting firm to help determine what the league might charge an existing owner who wants to relocate a team in Los Angeles.

That’s according to ESPN, which said the league would likely come up with the relocation fee before NFL owners vote on whether they’ll permit a team to move to Los Angeles.

That figure could come in between $200 million and $500 million, according to John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University economics professor and expert on sports economics. The money would be split among other NFL owners.

“There is significant value in L.A. relocation and the other NFL owners will skillfully extract most of it through the relocation fee,” he told the Business Journal. “The fee can’t be so high as to capture all of the gains or Kroenke and/or Guggenheim will not make the moves. If the relocation fee is substantial but not exhaustive then it is a way for the other NFL owners to capture the potential gains in venue revenue (luxury suites, club seats, sponsorships) that would otherwise not be shared.”

The Rams paid $29 million to relocate from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995. Likewise, the Baltimore Ravens and Tennessee Titans both took on $29 million relocation fees for their moves around the same time.

 

[CoachO]

The real problem I have with this is if you look back to 2005 and up until shortly after the Rams agreed to waive the 2005 top tier status clause, members (I assume more than Dan Dierdorf but at least him) were warning the CVC that they needed to work on funding a renovation or a new stadium. Dan knew then that they would be talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And he said then that the city could likely lose the Rams if they didn't do something.

The lease did not prohibit the CVC from negotiating a solution to the pending stadium issue or working on other solutions. No lease can do that as long as it is being done by the parties included in the lease. They definitely could have been working on something to fix the problem everyone saw coming.

The Rams offered up what I would agree was a pie in the sky plan to remodel the Dome. So the CVC's answer is to give the arbitrators no choice but to side with it anyway? To me, that is really poor business practice and really demonstrated how much they were willing to put forward to fulfilling their end of the contract.

If we wouldn't be here if the Rams were more reasonable, where would we be if the CVC wasn't so unreasonable? I have read numerous accounts that the CVC and city leaders felt like they held all the power and were not open to meaningful modifications to the dome. Unfortunately, we will likely never know how the conversations between Stan's people and the CVC really went.

What we do know is that the CVC negotiated a lease that was bad for St Louis. Shaw was on the stadium committee at the time so he had inside information that the CVC was desperate and ready to offer the kingdom. Unfortunately they did. But I suppose if they didn't, they likely would not have the Rams and we wouldn't be 375 pages into a thread about relocation.


Not sure how you can really say this. Who puts benchmarks into a lease that they have no intention to uphold? And if they did, isn't that starting out in bad faith? When you put something in a lease, you are promising to fulfill it to the best of your ability.

I haven't read the lease in a while and I never did read every word but IIRR, the top tier wording includes the word "SHALL". I'm sure anyone who has dealt with contracts or legal issues can tell you what that word means.

It's true that the opt out is in there and therefor would eliminate the potential for breach. But it would be to everyone's expectation that that clause would be met. Otherwise you would be putting forth a ten year lease with the hope that the team renews even though you didn't live up to your end. In ten years, the team did in essence renew but with added conditions. The CVC negotiated and agreed to not only get to that top tier status but give a progress report and plan of action by 2012. Upon which time, they offered what they knew wasn't even in the ballpark.

Personally, I didn't want the Rams to leave LA and I don't want them to now leave St Louis. But the idea that Stan is the only reason we are here discussing this is wrong. The CVC has played a big part in this situation.

I won't disagree that the clause was a poison dart from the begining. And I have never tried to imply that Kroenke is the sole reason for why this is happening. The biggest hurdle in this entire thing, IMO, was the overwhelming development of new stadiums that all were built after the lease was put in place. It changed the landscape of what "top tier" meant, and no one, including Shaw could have envisioned how the boom in stadiums throughout the league would impact this sitution.

And unless I am misreading the situation here, I have been under the impression that neither party could explore other options until this process played out. Again, that came straight from the mouth of Kevin Demoff 3 years ago. Unfortunately, the one thing that no one really saw coming, was the interest in LA on the part of Kroenke. And that obviously has had the biggest impact on this entire situation.

 

[RamFan503]

The top 25% was subjective on a number of different levels. The Rams included a retractable roof for example, which was NOT necessary to achieve top 25%.

They included expanding concourses, entry points, etc. All which were part of their "wish list" but in no way were pertinent to achieving "top tier". So to answer your question, they absolutely could have come in with a "lesser" proposal and still met the SUBJECTIVE criteria for top tier.

So the CVC couldn't have come with a more realistic proposal? If all those things were unnecessary for the arbitrators to decide that the plan would put the dome in top tier status, why didn't the CVC put forth a plan that didn't include all those things and got the job done? We all know that it was an all or nothing deal. So wouldn't offering a realistic plan win arbitration and trap Stan in the lease?

On top of all that, The Rams "proposal" (and I use that term loosely) didn't even include a financing break down of who was chipping in what or how much, not to mention if they'd contribute anything at all... didn't even mention tapping in to the G4 Loans..

talk about being insincere...

imagine if a city had made an offer like that to an owner or the NFL - they'd just laugh at them.

It never got that far so no one really knows what that breakdown would have been. It was plan vs plan. Maybe the G4 funds would have come into play. Who really knows?

I realize all that about losing the dome as a facility for conventions. But that is also a product of a dumb ass lease constructed in a way that gave away the kingdom for short term riches.

 

[iced]

It never got that far so no one really knows what that breakdown would have been. It was plan vs plan. Maybe the G4 funds would have come into play. Who really knows?

I realize all that about losing the dome as a facility for conventions. But that is also a product of a dumb ass lease constructed in a way that gave away the kingdom for short term riches.

Even the CVC in their proposal had those breakdowns, of how much they wanted from the Rams and how much they could contribute.


Please, the Rams plan wasn't sincere from the get go.. $700-$800 million from the city? Lol come on...

 

[RamFan503]

Until the NFL approves the relocation of the STL Rams, and the moving trucks show up, I won't believe this is a "done deal"

This I can agree with. I may be delusional but I still think Stan has always wanted to have an NFL team in St Louis and as long as he is not just totally soured on the region and market (see gov't officials prior to Peacock), I will believe that is still his dream until the moving vans cross the state line heading west.

 

[The Ripper]

I am amused at how many people continue to say that the CVC taking this to arbitration somehow irritated Kroenke, and is what caused him to look at LA. When in fact, I maintain, that was exactly what he wanted to happen.

Until the NFL approves the relocation of the STL Rams, and the moving trucks show up, I won't believe this is a "done deal" like many seem to. At the end of the day, if the Riverfront Stadium continues to be a viable option

I agree with both of these statements and I haven't suggested anything else. Kroenke is just following Shaw's road map and it at least goes back to at least 2005 but probably further. There aren't too many people that know Kroenke's true intentions and anyone who does isn't saying a word. St Louis could be the end destination or it could be LA or something else.

 

[RamFan503]

I won't disagree that the clause was a poison dart from the begining. And I have never tried to imply that Kroenke is the sole reason for why this is happening. The biggest hurdle in this entire thing, IMO, was the overwhelming development of new stadiums that all were built after the lease was put in place. It changed the landscape of what "top tier" meant, and no one, including Shaw could have envisioned how the boom in stadiums throughout the league would impact this sitution.

And unless I am misreading the situation here, I have been under the impression that neither party could explore other options until this process played out. Again, that came straight from the mouth of Kevin Demoff 3 years ago. Unfortunately, the one thing that no one really saw coming, was the interest in LA on the part of Kroenke. And that obviously has had the biggest impact on this entire situation.

Fair enough. I think there are points in there that I disagree with but the reality of the situation is - and this is really all I'm trying to point out - is that many want to point at Stan and say, "Booooo ... bad man." And insinuate that he is the only one culpable in this whole mess. But the NFL has plenty of ammo to make a case either way.

For me - all that means is that if the team moves, I won't be sharpening my pitchfork for a Kroenke lynching and I'll just hope that most of the ROD members in the Lou continue to hang out here. And the same goes if the Rams stay in the Lou. I hope that all the LA fans can let it go and hang out here as the die hard RAMS fans they all claim to be. My guess is that most of them will stay here and the elephant will have left the room.

 

[CoachO]

So the CVC couldn't have come with a more realistic proposal? If all those things were unnecessary for the arbitrators to decide that the plan would put the dome in top tier status, why didn't the CVC put forth a plan that didn't include all those things and got the job done? We all know that it was an all or nothing deal. So wouldn't offering a realistic plan win arbitration and trap Stan in the lease?

As I said, I don't think either party was really all that interested in upgrading the Dome. So putting forth a more comprehensive proposal would have been a risky move. Again, IMO, this has always been about getting a new football only facility in place. And this process was a necessary evil.

What real incentive did the CVC have in shutting down the Dome for up to 3 years while renovating it? Loss of convention business alone makes it a losing proposition. Now, did they end up playing a dangerous game of Russian Routlette here, well duh!!!!

But in terms of the lease and the Dome itself, i think this was always the "plan".

 

[iced]

What real incentive did the CVC have in shutting down the Dome for up to 3 years while renovating it? Loss of convention business alone makes it a losing proposition. Now, did they end up playing a dangerous game of Russian Routlette here, well duh!!!!

But in terms of the lease and the Dome itself, i think this was always the "plan".

When re-reading it, i read the CVC said that the Rams would only miss one football season...

now in lease terms that could be 18 months for we all know, but not 3 years

 

[The Ripper]

It shows what it is - a bull crap proposal. Rarely are stadiums renovated or built without assistance from the NFL/owner - and I don't think its happened once over the past decade.

Miami renovation - $400 million, all funded by Ross
Carolina Panthers? - even their initial proposals had them splitting the $250 million with the city
Atlanta Falcons - $1 billion from Arthur Blank, NFL, and PSLS (includes g4 loan), city - $200 million
Jaguars - $20 million from the team, $43 million from the city.

Common theme: No deal is realistic without any money from the owner. add in the fact that Kroenke is the 2nd wealthiest owner in the league, and its complete bull crap to call a proposal legitimate that has no money coming from him while lesser owners are all contributing to their stadiums.

Like I said, good luck in getting the other owners to believe that - especially when he has deeper pockets. Particularly if the proposal is over $200 million (and in the rams case, it was $700-$800 million).

Indy Minimal contribution to the owner. I don't think anyone thinks it is fair but the situation is what it is because of a bad agreement. The NFL looks out for the owner but no one looks out for the taxpayers.

 

[iced]

Indy Minimal contribution to the owner. I don't think anyone thinks it is fair but the situation is what it is because a bad agreement. The NFL looks out for the owner but no one looks out for the taxpayers.

Indy Contributed $100 million

Stan proposed nothing

Here's a whole list of stadium renovations - not one has nothing coming from the owner/nfl, with the colts being the most extreme example of them all.

http://www.vikings.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf

 

[CoachO]

Fair enough. I think there are points in there that I disagree with but the reality of the situation is - and this is really all I'm trying to point out - is that many want to point at Stan and say, "Booooo ... bad man." And insinuate that he is the only one culpable in this whole mess. But the NFL has plenty of ammo to make a case either way.

For me - all that means is that if the team moves, I won't be sharpening my pitchfork for a Kroenke lynching and I'll just hope that most of the ROD members in the Lou continue to hang out here. And the same goes if the Rams stay in the Lou. I hope that all the LA fans can let it go and hang out here as the die hard RAMS fans they all claim to be. My guess is that most of them will stay here and the elephant will have left the room.

I am not one of those who places all the "blame" on Kroenke. I also agree with you about the polical climate in this town, and how they tend to only react when forced to. Go back to the Cardinal Stadium situation, and all the rumors of them "relocating" across the river. While that was the epotime of a smokescreen, it did happen,and got the attention of City Hall.
I also place a ton of "blame" on the NFL itself here. All these whispers and individual agenda of various owners is like watching an episode of "Survivor" with all the alliances that are formed behind the scenes. They put relocation guidelines in place with the primary purpose of preventing ANY owner from just up and moving for the purpose of financial gain for that individual franchise. But now for whatever reason, after exploiting the LA market for decades as leverage to build more stadiums than I care to count, they suddenly seem willing to turn a blind eye to their own guidelines.

Just another case of selective enforcement that is becoming the calling card of Roger Goodell.