Bernie: Can STL be the next "Cleveland" in NFL?
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_ea2bb1a4-9219-5ab1-9065-ed0611c4df97.html
When I interviewed Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon last week, we discussed a number of subjects including the status of the St. Louis stadium plan, the effort to keep the Rams, the fairness of the NFL's relocation guidelines, Nixon's relationship with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the future of NFL football in STL.
Nixon has taken the high road with Stan Kroenke, refraining from criticism of the Rams owner and making it clear that keeping the Rams here is the No. 1 priority. Nixon's diplomacy with regards to Kroenke and the Rams has scored points at the NFL headquarters. The last thing Goodell or NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman want is a governor blasting away at the region's NFL owner.
If the St. Louis task force can finalize the stadium funding in advance of the NFL's time frame for making a decision on relocation, Kroenke may not get his way. The NFL could reject his application bid and suggest that it's time to make peace in St Louis.
OK, but what if the stadium funding and land purchases are secured and the NFL allows the Rams to move to Los Angeles, anyway? That would put St. Louis in a bad position in the quest to retain NFL membership. Would we have a shot at attracting another NFL franchise? Maybe, maybe not. Seriously, there's no way to make predictions with confidence.
Nixon said something interesting last week when I asked him what would happen if the Rams are green-lighted for a move to LA -- even if St. Louis has funding in place to build the new stadium on the north riverfront.
The governor cited Cleveland as an example of hope.
Nixon repeatedly stressed that the only thing he cares about is keeping the Rams here. It's his only priority. He's willing to meet with Kroenke at a moment's notice.
But since I pestered Nixon to answer a "what if" question, he said what we would expect him to: the goal is to keep St. Louis as part of the NFL, and all of the emphasis is on Rams.
However ... if the Rams are hauled away, then the only thing to do is explore alternative possibilities.
And should it reach that point, Nixon hopes St. Louis would be positioned to become the next Cleveland.
The governor was referring to a unique event in recent NFL history.
Cleveland was ambushed in 1995 when Browns owner Art Modell secretly cut a deal with the state of Maryland to move the franchise to Baltimore before the '96 season.
The controversial and unexpected move caused a huge uproar, not only in Cleveland but throughout the NFL. How could the NFL allow Modell to run off and abandon a great football market? Cleveland threatened to sue the league.
Eventually, the NFL and Cleveland agreed on a deal. In February of 1996, the NFL announced that the Cleveland would be returned to the league in 1999, to play in a new stadium. The Cleveland spot would be filled in one of two ways; an existing team would move there, or the league would give the city an expansion team to begin play in '99. As part of the agreement, the NFL made Modell leave the Browns nickname behind, and establish a new identity (the Ravens) in Baltimore.
In the end, Baltimore got a team that's won two Super Bowls since moving there. The Ravens are one of the league's better franchises. And Cleveland received a replacement franchise. Even though the "new" Browns haven't won much, at least Cleveland kept its place in the NFL. The solution worked.
So what does St. Louis have in common with Cleveland?
No one, including me, would try to make the case that St. Louis has the same level of passion for NFL football as Cleveland. But the same could be said of many NFL markets, and it's hardly an insult to St. Louis to recognize Cleveland's historical significance in the NFL.
But just as Cleveland got a raw deal when Modell ran away with the franchise, it would be terribly unfair for St. Louis to lose the Rams and NFL membership after coming up with a funded, workable stadium plan for the second time in fewer than 25 years. How many cities have built two new stadiums in fewer than 25 years to keep the NFL in town? Answer: none. And how many cities have lost a team after offering the franchise a new stadium? Answer: none.
So I completely understand Nixon's Cleveland reference.
This is about fairness, and St. Louis being taken taken care of after stepping up to appease the NFL and the Rams by solving a stadium problem with a true financial commitment. It's about the NFL doing the right thing instead of abandoning a market that did what the NFL asked it to do.
But if the Rams are permitted to move to LA, how could the NFL accommodate St. Louis? It wouldn't be easy. But let's consider some scenarios:
1. Grant St. Louis an expansion team. This is longshot. The NFL has been adamant about maintaining a 32-team league -- repeatedly declaring that there are no plans to expand. I suppose we should never say 'never,' because anything is possible. And the NFL has played with an odd number of teams before; the new Browns were the league's 31st franchise and the league didn't add a 32nd team until the expansion Houston Texans began play in 2002.
The NFL could, in theory, go with 33 teams for a while before adding a second Los Angeles franchise or entering the international market with a team in London. If the NFL reversed course and decided to add a 33rd team, it would make more sense to give Kroenke an expansion team in Los Angeles and keep the Rams in STL under new ownership. That's the most plausible expansion scenario ... but again, unless the NFL signals a willingness to even consider expanding, it's more of a fantasy than realistic possibility. If the NFL is considering expansion, the league is doing a great job of keeping the plans secret.
A Kroenke-owned expansion team in LA solves one predicament; St. Louis would keep the Rams and stay in the league. But what about the Chargers and Raiders? Unless something happens fast with new stadiums in their current markets, the NFL could accommodate both teams by choosing their plan to partner in a new stadium in Carson, south of LA. And that would be a bad development for Kroenke's LA dream.
2. The NFL makes a Denver deal with Kroenke, who would be given first-in-line status to purchase the Denver Broncos should the franchise go up for sale in the next several years. This would undoubtedly have some appeal for Kroenke, who owns Denver-based teams in the NHL, NBA and MLS. By adding the Broncos to his properties, Kroenke would no longer be in violation of the NFL's rule prohibiting cross ownership.
The NFL would approach Kroenke with this promise: plan on staying in St. Louis and moving into the new riverfront stadium, and we'll take care of you when the Broncos become available.
But this is no longer such a simple scenario. With owner Pat Bowlen's health in serious decline, the Broncos are currently held by a family trust. Under the old NFL rules, there'd be some financial pressure for Bowlen's children to sell the franchise to avoid massive inheritance taxes. But with the new NFL ownership rules, the Bowlen's heirs have a better chance of keeping the team.
That would change only if they wanted to sell. In that case, Kroenke could purchase the team and sell the Rams to new ownership that keeps the team in St. Louis. But all of that depends on the Bowlen family.
3. The Oakland Raiders move to St. Louis. This would only be in play if the Raiders (A) don't get a new stadium in Oakland, and (B) get shut out of Los Angeles with the NFL choosing Kroenke's Inglewood plan over the Carson plan. But Raiders owner Mark Davis has repeatedly insisted that he has no desire to bring a team to St. Louis. He flat-out rejects the possibility. And each time Davis says this, he becomes more adamant in dismissing the idea. But wouldn't a move to a new stadium St. Louis serve to stabilize his finances and long-term ownership of the Raiders?
Not necessarily. You could even say "probably not." The NFL owners last month voted to allow trust ownership of teams, and lowered the percentage required for an owner to stay in control of the franchise to a minimum of 5 percent. Under the new rules, irrevocable family trusts can control ownership of teams, and these trusts can protect ownership heirs from getting walloped by inheritance taxes.
What does this mean for Davis? The Sports Business Journal explained:
"With asset values now soaring past $1 billion, the tax bite is severe, commonly 40 percent of appreciation. Take the Oakland Raiders, owned by the widow of the late Al Davis, who took control of the team in 1972 when the franchise would have been worth just a few million dollars. Davis passed in 2011. His wife theoretically now could put her control portion into an irrevocable family trust for the benefit of her son, Mark Davis, who runs the team, and greatly reduce the tax bill he would owe when she passes."
4. Kroenke buys the Raiders and moves them to LA, and sells the Rams to a St. Louis-based group. This isn't a crazy idea, but again, Davis insists that he will never sell the Raiders. It's personal with him because of his late father, Al Davis, who owned the Raiders and turned them into an iconic NFL franchise. Yes, every potential seller has a price, but Davis seems entrenched in his no-sale position. And with the league changing the ownership rules to provide estate-taxes relief, Davis isn't under as much pressure to sell. At least in theory, anyway.
5. The Chargers get shut out of LA, and move to St. Louis. Forget about it; I just can't see this happening. And for the sake of conversation ... even if there is a a chance, it wouldn't be in play anytime soon. If the Chargers lose the battle for LA, they'd renew or continue efforts to get a new venue in San Diego. Any St. Louis stadium funding is based on the here and the now. That funding wouldn't be in place long-term.
6. The Jacksonville Jaguars move to St. Louis: In 2020, maybe. But Shad Khan, an honorable man, has invested a great deal of money in the stadium in Jacksonville, and he's worked hard to enhance the team's financial picture through aggressive marketing and sponsorship deals. Khan is determined to make it work in Jacksonville. If he had interest in St. Louis, it wouldn't be now. And again, the mechanism for funding a stadium in St. Louis is temporary. It doesn't stay on the table forever.
I like the idea of a "Cleveland" solution in St. Louis. It makes for intriguing discussion. We can play the parlor game and think of all of the possibilities. But the realities are far more complicated.
Our town's best shot at staying in the NFL still evolves around secure funding of the proposed stadium. And then our hopes would rest with the NFL, and the league's willingness to enforce its relocation guidelines.
Thanks for reading ...
- Bernie
