New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[8to12]

Pat Haden said he's already agreed to let an NFL team use the Colliseum while an LA area stadium is built. It's also a lot closer to the Inglewood site and what would be their organizational HQ. Plus he's a former Ram so working with him is a natural.

I understand that Haden has already agreed to allow an NFL team and that it is closer to the Inglewood site. However, I'm not sure the Inglewood site will hold their organizational HQ. They will probably have to find a location with practice fields, like they have now at Rams park in Earth City, Mo.
They may end up having offices there for administration, but the football operations will probably be elsewhere. Also, The Rose Bowl offers a team to sell Private Suites for the 2 year interim. I don't believe the Colliseum offers this option. IMO, the site lines are better at the Rose Bowl and is a much better place to tail gate. But then again, I am partial, I am Bruin fan

 

[DaveFan'51]

View: https://twitter.com/RandyKarraker/status/606279892360003586


edit: nevermind. It popped up after.

OK! I'll take Karraker's word for It! But!! in the article it was clearly stated, " these Contracts normally run from May to May"
I was simply reporting what the article stated.

 

[ChrisW]

OK! I'll take Karraker's word for It! But!! in the article it was clearly stated, " these Contracts normally run from May to May"
I was simply reporting what the article stated.

You're cool. I was just showing you what a local guy had to say about it.

 

[DaveFan'51]

You're cool. I was just showing you what a local guy had to say about it.

I did realize that brother!!!

 

[8to12]

OK! I'll take Karraker's word for It! But!! in the article it was clearly stated, " these Contracts normally run from May to May"
I was simply reporting what the article stated.

In addition, the article quoted an employee of a company that has a contract with the Rams and that contract ending date had been changed from May to February. Karraker may be right that in general, partnership contracts can expire anywhere from Feb-June, but this was a specific case relating to the Rams. Knowing Karraker's bias regarding this subject, I have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You're cool. I was just showing you what a local guy had to say about it.

I think part of the issue is that they all run out at the same time now.

 

[The Ripper]

I think part of the issue is that they all run out at the same time now.

There's a reason for what Randy said because there will be a transition after the move. Some employees and contracts will remain for a period of time after the team moves. Contracts and employees that won't continue may have been changed to coincide with the league year and keep the ones they need for a period of time

 

[blue4]

Knowing Karraker's bias regarding this subject, I have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

Is there a source left without a bias? In any case, due diligence from the Rams would require stuff like this regarding employees whether the Rams think it likely they go or likely they stay. Just as a precaution. Since there was no "now you're gone, and you ain't ever coming back" statement made to any of these people, they can be retained if the Rams stay in St Louis. This is a non story really, and I'm usually the pessimistic one. This was no doubt started by, as you say, someone with a bias.

 

[Goose]

I believe that's because they were working to get LA an expansion team at the same time, but after years of different LA billionaires fighting over who would get the team and such, they went and awarded it to Houston instead. That may have been why.

You may be right about that. I think the land and stadium also played into it as well.

Did they say that? Wouldn't that indicate they'd rather the Rams then? Because going from 0 to 2 could do the same thing, especially if you're looking at 4 years in a temporary stadium.

I took it as the entire California market so SD, Oak, and SF. They have already said that Southern Cal will include the Chargers, or at least that's how it has been reported. So to me it will be SD, SF, and ???. If the Rams get to LA I don't see how the Raiders stay.

 

[Goose]

There's more public money on the table in SD so they either reject both or accept both. The NFL has done well but how much did they lose by not having a team or 2 in LA? It comes up every time the networks renew the contracts and networks want the NFL in LA. There is no other legitimate way for Kroenke to move to LA. Why do they keep talking about keeping St Louis an NFL city if they haven't planned for an alternative option.

I am not sure I agree with that but one point to keep in consideration is that STL money is not tied to development. Both deals are also structured very differently. I agree they will make more money in LA but is it enough money to compensate the lose of STL and Oak or SD? You and I clearly don't agree on how Stan can get to LA because I don't see it as the only legitimate way. Stan took the appropriate to freeze out City and State officials after arbitration. So the approach the Taskforce took is we will work with the NFL instead of the team. I see what you are saying but I think you are ready a bit too much into it. You can trust me, the focus is on keeping the Rams. If that doesn't happen there is no option B without serious help from the NFL. If the Rams leave and another teams is here I'd be unbelievable shocked.

 

[The Ripper]

I am not sure I agree with that but one point to keep in consideration is that STL money is not tied to development. Both deals are also structured very differently. I agree they will make more money in LA but is it enough money to compensate the lose of STL and Oak or SD? You and I clearly don't agree on how Stan can get to LA because I don't see it as the only legitimate way. Stan took the appropriate to freeze out City and State officials after arbitration. So the approach the Taskforce took is we will work with the NFL instead of the team. I see what you are saying but I think you are ready a bit too much into it. You can trust me, the focus is on keeping the Rams. If that doesn't happen there is no option B without serious help from the NFL. If the Rams leave and another teams is here I'd be unbelievable shocked.

The NFL doesn't have a good track record when cities work directly with them to keep the team for relocating. The situations are completely different because there was a lease in place in Cleveland but what the league did to secure financing for a stadium it's a model that they can use for an expansion team in one of the home markets. The league loaned the money for the stadium. The loan was payed back from the expansion fee. We don't want to go into a debate on who is to blame for the stalemate after arbitration but the one thing we all agree on is the work that has been done since last November and that's one reason the the NFL might assist St Louis in building a stadium.

 

[Goose]

The NFL doesn't have a good track record when cities work directly with them to keep the team for relocating. The situations are completely different because there was a lease in place in Cleveland but what the league did to secure financing for a stadium it's a model that they can use for an expansion team in one of the home markets. The league loaned the money for the stadium. The loan was payed back from the expansion fee. We don't want to go into a debate on who is to blame for the stalemate after arbitration but the one thing we all agree on is the work that has been done since last November and that's one reason the the NFL might assist St Louis in building a stadium.

The Cleveland to Baltimore situation was very different from this one. First part of the blame falls on Modell. When Cleveland decided to build Progressive Field Modell had an opportunity to be part of the process and chose not to. In the end it was a bad decision and he proved that he lost $21million between ’93 and ’94. I think we agree Stan cannot make the same claim. There was no money on the table when Modell announced his move it wasn’t until after the announcement and that agreement with Baltimore that the voters of Cleveland voted to approved funds in ‘95. STL has money on the table now before relocation. You are correct that the lease ran until ’98, we both know we have no lease, and the city filed an injunction to keep the team until ’98. That would have created 3 lame duck seasons which is what lead to the settlement with the NFL allowing them to move. I tried to find details on how the new Cleveland stadium was paid for but couldn’t find anything so if you can I’d be interested in reading it.

 

[Moostache]

The NFL doesn't have a good track record when cities work directly with them to keep the team for relocating.

I seem to recall a whole lot of talk about the Vikings and Los Angeles a few years ago...many people making comparisons to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis, lots of "smoke" and then the NFL stepped in and took over the negotiations that ended with the new Minnesota Stadium and the Vikings staying put...I know there is a lot more to it, but that was just the most recent example I can think of with the NFL and a specific city...

 

[ChrisW]

In addition, the article quoted an employee of a company that has a contract with the Rams and that contract ending date had been changed from May to February. Karraker may be right that in general, partnership contracts can expire anywhere from Feb-June, but this was a specific case relating to the Rams. Knowing Karraker's bias regarding this subject, I have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

What we don't know is the history of those contracts. How many years have they ended in May? Is this the first year every that they've ended in Feb.? Those are the questions I'd like an answer to, then it would show just how likely this coincides with them applying for relocation.

 

[The Ripper]

I seem to recall a whole lot of talk about the Vikings and Los Angeles a few years ago...many people making comparisons to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis, lots of "smoke" and then the NFL stepped in and took over the negotiations that ended with the new Minnesota Stadium and the Vikings staying put...I know there is a lot more to it, but that was just the most recent example I can think of with the NFL and a specific city...

The Vikings situation was a complete bluff. The team said they had an agreement to play temporarily at the Rose Bowl the following year which was false. The Rose Bowl at the time could not accommodate an NFL schedule. The NFL is good at mediation for a team that uses relocation as leverage but for a team that really wanted to move that's a different situation. The other one that appears like the league stopped relocation is the Seahawks but they didn't really play a role. I know the reporters like to say the team moved back because of the threat of fines but that came way too late in the process to have an effect. Plus the NFL was trying to get an antitrust exemption for relocation from Congress and if they could stop a team no need for the exemption.

The Cleveland to Baltimore situation was very different from this one. First part of the blame falls on Modell. When Cleveland decided to build Progressive Field Modell had an opportunity to be part of the process and chose not to. In the end it was a bad decision and he proved that he lost $21million between ’93 and ’94. I think we agree Stan cannot make the same claim. There was no money on the table when Modell announced his move it wasn’t until after the announcement and that agreement with Baltimore that the voters of Cleveland voted to approved funds in ‘95. STL has money on the table now before relocation. You are correct that the lease ran until ’98, we both know we have no lease, and the city filed an injunction to keep the team until ’98. That would have created 3 lame duck seasons which is what lead to the settlement with the NFL allowing them to move. I tried to find details on how the new Cleveland stadium was paid for but couldn’t find anything so if you can I’d be interested in reading it.

Goose, I will try to find something about the financing. I read it in one of the legal books about NFL and Sports Law just not sure which one. I believe it's also in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws

 

[dbrooks25]

What we don't know is the history of those contracts. How many years have they ended in May? Is this the first year every that they've ended in Feb.? Those are the questions I'd like an answer to, then it would show just how likely this coincides with them applying for relocation.

I don't really see how this is a big story to many. If this is a sign that the team will apply for relocation, didn't we already know this stuff? For everyone who wants to make this a big story what if the contracts are renewed in February since they run from Feb to Feb? What then? The bottom line for me is that everyone assumes that Kroenke wants to be in L.A. and if that's the case then how is this earth shattering news? It still comes down to what the NFL chooses to do. This news really doesn't affect the outcome nor is it a sign of what the outcome will be.

 

[Hacksaw]

Pat Haden said he's already agreed to let an NFL team use the Colliseum while an LA area stadium is built. It's also a lot closer to the Inglewood site and what would be their organizational HQ. Plus he's a former Ram so working with him is a natural.

a year ago Rams officials were seen by a friend of mine who works there. They were discussing parking and concession issues.

 

[Angry Ram]

I seem to recall a whole lot of talk about the Vikings and Los Angeles a few years ago...many people making comparisons to the Lakers moving from Minneapolis, lots of "smoke" and then the NFL stepped in and took over the negotiations that ended with the new Minnesota Stadium and the Vikings staying put...I know there is a lot more to it, but that was just the most recent example I can think of with the NFL and a specific city...

Also the Bills when they were up for sale. And the Jaguars when they got a new owner.

 

[Hacksaw]

Rams’ contracts hint at relocation

St. Louis Rams’ annual contracts with some employees and advertisers have run from May to May.

But this year, while the team is rumored to be eying the Los Angeles market, those contracts have been changed, and now coincide with the National Football League’s deadline to submit relocation bids, according to people familiar with the matter.

IT consulting firm Perficient’s sponsorship contract now runs to the end of February 2016, according to Bill Davis, a company spokesman.

NFL teams have between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 to submit relocation bids. Kroenke appears set to submit such a bid now that he has assembled land and plans to build a stadium as part of a $2 billion development in Inglewood, California.

The Rams did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Davis said he noticed the changed dates, and asked the Rams about it.

Rams officials told him the team was changing its contracts to coincide with the end of the playing season, according to Davis. The Super Bowl is held in early February.

A Rams employee who works on an annual contract said it was also changed, and now expires at the end of February 2016.

“To me, right away, it made sense,” said the employee, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals. “As a business, they have to notify the league in February if they are moving, so why would they want to pay people beyond February? They didn’t say that was why, but I put two and two together.”

 

[blue4]

The NFL doesn't have a good track record when cities work directly with them to keep the team for relocating.

How exactly do you work with a guy who doesn't want to work with you? I'm betting Peacock knew early on that working with Stan was out, so he doubled down on the appeal to the NFL. Let's say for argument sake we did try to work with Stan. How do you negotiate owner input with a guy who not only tells you, but shows you as well that he'd rather spend 2 billion dollars somewhere else? There's nothing we could or should give him to equal that. This way we have a real shot at getting the loser of the Grand LA sweepstakes. Or even convince a few owners to vote our way.