New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Georgia was stopped from moving the Rams to Baltimore. Only 6 owners opposed her move to STL. She sought permission before moving and received it, so I'm not sure where that is coming from.

Modell likewise worked out a deal and didn't just move without permission, so, again.

Davis was just a pain in the ass for everyone. He did sue and win the right to move the Raiders to LA. That was 35 years ago and probably would fail today with the precedents that have been set since. He lost all of his other suits against the NFL and stadiums that I could find.

The vast majority of attempts to move without permission have failed.

Georgia was not stopped from moving to Baltimore. The 2 sides couldn't come to an agreement.

The original vote for relocation was rejected. 21 owners voted against it.

If anything the precedents are stronger today. American Needle Case.

The vast majority of attempts to move without permission have failed.

The NFL has never stopped anyone from moving. The only move that was supported was the Cardinals relocation. The rest were all negotiated behind closed doors. Modell was only allowed to move after the NFL mediated the dispute. The relocation never would have happened because the team had a valid lease and would have been blocked in court.

 

[iced]

I can't believe we're all really having this debate again, but the thread's been sort of stale lately so I guess I can't complain.

Yea i think its pointless to argue about the legalside right now - i'm just gonna leave it be since we've heard indications that kroenke isn't going to fight the nfl on their decision.. until we hear something pro legal, pointless.

 

[RamzFanz]

I can't believe we're all really having this debate again, but the thread's been sort of stale lately so I guess I can't complain. Just thought I'd leave this article here, that I found on another Ram site. The irony is...well.....take a look.

St. Louis Blues: Fans Threaten Suit As NFL Blocks Rams's Exit From L.A.


Stadium is there. T-shirts are printed. Now all the city needs is a team.

By Laurel Shaper Walters, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor MARCH 20, 1995
ST. LOUIS — IN the multimillion-dollar game of National Football League ownership, failing to share a pot of gold does not go uncontested.

Football-hungry fans in St. Louis handed over $74 million to show their devotion to the sport and lock in a deal relocating the Rams here from Los Angeles.

But last week the NFL owners voted against the move, which would have given the Rams the most profitable franchise in the league. The vote was 21 to 3, with six owners abstaining. Now the issue appears to be headed for court.

It's all about money

The dispute centers around how much revenue Rams' owner Georgia Frontiere is willing to share with the league, which demanded 34 percent of the $70 million raised in St. Louis and additional funds for a new stadium in the Los Angeles area.

The NFL also wanted Ms. Frontiere to cover any rebate the Fox television network demands in compensation for losing Rams coverage in Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest TV market, for St. Louis, the 18th-largest market.

Many of the owners were envious of the profitable deal Frontiere was sitting on. ''The Rams in St. Louis, with the deal they have, would be making $25 million while I'd be in New England losing $10 million,'' says Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. ''In 1999 there is no salary cap, and what kind of chance would I have trying to compete against that?'' Owners of less profitable teams fear that their top players may be lured away with big salaries from deep-pocket teams like the Rams.

But in St. Louis, the euphoria unleashed in January with the signing of the relocation agreement has turned to anger at being snubbed for the third time by the NFL. After losing the football Cardinals to Phoenix in 1988 and failing to win an expansion team in 1993, the victory was sweet for St. Louisans.

More than 74,000 supportive fans applied for 46,000 personal-seat licenses, paying from $250 to $4,500 for the right to purchase season tickets for the same seat every year.

The owners' vote in Phoenix last week was supposed to be a mere technicality. Construction workers completing the $260 million stadium near the St. Louis Arch have already painted ''Home of the Rams'' across the new building's girders. And Rams T-shirts were selling fast at local sports stores. The nixing of the deal has embarassed some St. Louisans who worry about the city's national image after three NFL rebuffs. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon is threatening to sue the NFL for violating federal antitrust laws.

''The Rams are resolute to go ahead on the legal front, as are we,'' said Thomas Eagleton, head of FANS Inc., the group that negotiated the deal. But others say the city can only blame itself. ''If anything made us look silly it was the delirium with which we agreed to a deal that was legalized extortion,'' said Bob Costas, a sports commentator and St. Louis resident.

Antitrust allegations

''The NFL teams are separate, independent businesses that compete with one another on and off the field,'' Mr. Nixon says. ''If the other NFL teams and the Rams' competitors act as a cartel to stop them from doing business in the city of their choice, it would be a classic restraint of trade. We're not going to stand by on the sidelines and let the smoke-filled-room cartel of the NFL take away what we've earned.''

The league has a losing record in antitrust lawsuits. In the early 1980s, Raiders' owner Al Davis sued the NFL and won the right to move his team from Oakland to Los Angeles and was awarded $48 million in damages.

In a game of high-stakes chicken, despite threats, the lawsuits may never materialize. ''This is all a negotiating ploy to get more money out of Georgia [Frontiere],'' says Joseph Alioto, a San Francisco lawyer who won the Raiders' case.

But Frontiere is vowing to fight back. ''The last chapter has yet to be written, and I look forward to a happy ending,'' she says. ''You know, the last play of the game is when the quarterback kneels to run out the clock. I am not going to be the quarterback kneeling. The clock is still ticking.''

http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0320/20081.html

Yes, some irony here, especially Nixon's flip flop.

However, LA refused to build a stadium for a team losing money. The NFL DID approve the move in the end.

Saint Louis is not refusing to build, the Rams are not losing money, and other teams have a need where Rams do not meaning the NFL will almost certainly not allow a move.

 

[The Ripper]

Yes, some irony here, especially Nixon's flip flop.

However, LA refused to build a stadium for a team losing money. The NFL DID approve the move in the end.

Saint Louis is not refusing to build, the Rams are not losing money, and other teams have a need where Rams do not meaning the NFL will almost certainly not allow a move.

Anaheim didn't refuse to build a stadium. There were various proposals made to the Rams that included a football only stadium.

 

[RamzFanz]

Georgia was not stopped from moving to Baltimore. The 2 sides couldn't come to an agreement.

The original vote for relocation was rejected. 21 owners voted against it.

If anything the precedents are stronger today. American Needle Case.



The NFL has never stopped anyone from moving. The only move that was supported was the Cardinals relocation. The rest were all negotiated behind closed doors. Modell was only allowed to move after the NFL mediated the dispute. The relocation never would have happened because the team had a valid lease and would have been blocked in court.

Every move has its own storyline and players. In the end, the NFL has approved every move other than the Raiders that I can find. Whether under duress or not, threats or not, contracts or not, that's the end result as far as I can see.

The NFL voted against Georgia moving to Baltimore. That's a fact. Would she have anyways? Would they have relented? Would she have sued and won or lost? We will never know.

What we DO know is every one of those moves, other than the Raiders, ultimately were approved moves. The Raiders are the only team that has ever moved successfully without permission as far as I can find.

 

[RamzFanz]

Anaheim didn't refuse to build a stadium. There were various proposals made to the Rams that included a football only stadium.

Link please. I can't find any of that.

 

[The Ripper]

Every move has its own storyline and players. In the end, the NFL has approved every move other than the Raiders that I can find. Whether under duress or not, threats or not, contracts or not, that's the end result as far as I can see.

The NFL voted against Georgia moving to Baltimore. That's a fact. Would she have anyways? Would they have relented? Would she have sued and won or lost? We will never know.

What we DO know is every one of those moves, other than the Raiders, ultimately were approved moves. The Raiders are the only team that has ever moved successfully without permission as far as I can find.

The only relocation application that the Rams put forward was to St Louis. Here's all of them prior to the Hearings in 1996

http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

 

[RamzFanz]

@RamzFanz you really are leading a charge. I hope your right and have been right up with you that no way the Rams were leaving.

But I think at this point its a toss up. Everyone including Kevin Demoff is talking about LA. That makes its a very real possibility. Plus, a lot of potential setbacks are seeming to pop up more recently. Lawsuits and the like.

My confidinee in the Rams staying is fading each day but remain hopeful that the STL stadium becomes real.

I'm not really leading a charge for them to stay, although that is what I want, I'm just discussing the ins and outs of a move.

Kevin Demoff answers questions about LA and does so with great ambiguity and non-committal answers. Every word they have spoken about Saint Louis and the stadium has been neutral or positive. The Rams are actively participating in the planning of the stadium and have unequivocally supported it publicly.

All of the LA talk is just that. It's not an official position and will most likely never be. It's a plot of land owned by a real estate developer and some drawings. Every part of the deal is going against that happening. Precedent, investment, commitment, need, it's all on STL's side.

In my mind the exception is if a lawsuit slows the stadium. That might mean Kroenke is forced to declare intentions in a timely manner, even if he has no real hope or intention of moving.

The politicians and unions want their stadium so it will be built. Delayed? Maybe. Stopped? Not a chance in my mind. Once they break ground, it will be set in stone that the Rams will stay. Bold predictions.

 

[The Ripper]

If you need more here's an article from the LA Times from January 1995 and one rejecting the vote.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-18/sports/sp-21267_1_rams-st-louis

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-03-16/sports/1995075116_1_rams-rebate-phoenix

 

[RamzFanz]

The only relocation application that the Rams put forward was to St Louis. Here's all of them prior to the Hearings in 1996

http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

I may be wrong about Baltimore, I thought I had read they voted no but I can't find it. However, no team, other than the Raiders, has ever moved without permission from the NFL...yes?

 

[OldSchool]

Every move has its own storyline and players. In the end, the NFL has approved every move other than the Raiders that I can find. Whether under duress or not, threats or not, contracts or not, that's the end result as far as I can see.

The owners didn't revote after GF threatened to sue the league. Tagliabue caved and agreed to let them move without another vote.

The only relocation application that the Rams put forward was to St Louis. Here's all of them prior to the Hearings in 1996

She never filed for relocation, she discussed with other owners and Tagliabue and was shot down telling her she wouldn't be allowed to move.

 

[RamzFanz]

If you need more here's an article from the LA Times from January 1995 and one rejecting the vote.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-18/sports/sp-21267_1_rams-st-louis

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-03-16/sports/1995075116_1_rams-rebate-phoenix

They talked about a possibility of a new stadium with nothing to back it up? Did they ever actually do anything convincing that they would build? Investors? Public funds? Drawings? Land purchases?

 

[RamzFanz]

The owners didn't revote after GF threatened to sue the league. Tagliabue caved and agreed to let them move without another vote.

"IRVING, Tex. — The Los Angeles Rams are history, officially gone from Anaheim to St. Louis after winning the National Football League's blessing Wednesday with a $46-million payment.

In addition to a $29-million relocation fee, the Rams agreed to pay $17 million from the proceeds of personal seat licenses, which are one-time fees for rights to buy season tickets.

Twenty-three of the 30 league owners must approve a franchise move, and they voted 22 to 6 in favor Wednesday, with the Los Angeles Raiders abstaining. Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, who had been asked to remain outside during the special meeting, was then called on to cast the deciding vote."

She never filed for relocation, she discussed with other owners and Tagliabue and was shot down telling her she wouldn't be allowed to move.

OK, so the NFL told her she wouldn't be allowed. Same result.

 

[The Ripper]

The owners didn't revote after GF threatened to sue the league. Tagliabue caved and agreed to let them move without another vote.



She never filed for relocation, she discussed with other owners and Tagliabue and was shot down telling her she wouldn't be allowed to move.

She did apply and went through the process. The Raiders also applied to relocate in 1995 and Taglibue recommended approval but the Raiders moved before the vote.

REPORT TO THE

NFL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE


Re: Request By The Los Angeles Rams To

Transfer Their Home Playing Site To

St. Louis. Missouri




On February 1, 1995, the Los Angeles Rams formally

advised the League of their desire to relocate from Anaheim to

St. Louis beginning with the 1995 NFL season. In support, the

Rams presented a 25 -page Statement of Reasons and detailed

related materials. In doing so. the Rams also "reserve [d] the

right to challenge any . . . conclusion [disapproving the

move] and any procedures, rules, or bylaws that might be

invoked to bar relocation to St. Louis."

 

[The Ripper]

They talked about a possibility of a new stadium with nothing to back it up? Did they ever actually do anything convincing that they would build? Investors? Public funds? Drawings? Land purchases?

The process was different in regards to building a stadiums but they owned the land, Disney also pledged money, Anaheim committed funds and other communities did also. You can't compare the process for stadiums today to what they did in 1995. It was a valid enough reason to contribute to the Rams being rejected from relocating. The one thing that hasn't changed is that the NFL still requires the team to be exciteted about the proposal. Grubman said that in regards to the proposal in SD.

 

[den-the-coach]

Yes, he has. Every statement he's ever made. He even tried to stay in the dome with upgrades. Demoff has stated they support the building of a stadium in STL. So, based on what we actually know as fact, with nothing being said otherwise, it's a reasonable statement that he is probably just playing the cards he has.

You would've been a godsend to Nixon during Watergate @RamzFanz, but I'll play...Enos Stanley" Stan Kroenke has been giving the most strongest of indications that he wants to move the Rams back to Los Angeles and would like them to play in Inglewood, CA where he supposedly has sent out smoke signals that he will fund a 2 billion dollar stadium along with other amenities.

Also Stan has only wanted to stay St. Louis at the EJD and won his case accordingly giving him the right to go year to year. Never has he indicated or sent out any signals that he would embrace a Riverfront Stadium either.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Hello fellow Ram fans. Just wanted to share a couple observations I'm sure have been discussed already.

Nixon requested a jump up in the the time line the NFL has given. It helped to set the date of the NFL owners meeting in AUG where all 32 owners will attend.

June 22 is the date Chargers and Raiders present the proposal to the city of Carson.

I've been asked before "what is there to present?" I can only speculate on that. I'm not sure if it will be a presentation to the public or to city officials behind a closed door. One thing is all but certain, it is sure to make headlines one way or the other.

 

[RamzFanz]

The bottom line for Kroenke, if he actually wants to move and isn't just bluffing, is an argument of greed.

What else can they say if he submits an application?

NFL: So, you want to move the Rams to LA?

Kroenke: Yes.

NFL: Why?

Kroenke: More money.

NFL: Are you losing money in Saint Louis?

Kroenke: Oh, no. The team is worth about a billion dollars, the taxpayers will have contributed $728 million so far without the new stadium, I pay no utilities and only a half million a year rent, and every year I make a huge pile of cash. A MASSIVE pile.

NFL: But you want more?

Kroenke: Yes.

NFL: So, you helped uproot the Rams from LA, Saint Louis has basically given you everything you've asked for, the fans still showed when it was a terrible team, you are making money hand over fist, you have no ties to LA and lifelong ties to Saint Louis, LA isn't helping you at all, but you want to screw our Saint Louis NFL fans for more money?

Kroenke: Yes, exactly.

NFL: What about the cities that have run down stadiums and no hope of getting a new one?

Kroenke: Screw them, I'm Kroenke, give me more money.



Seriously, he has no valid argument for moving and there's no way they'll let him. It's all a big bluff. If he tries to move, they will hammer him into the ground. I will bet he doesn't even apply to move knowing there's no way the NFL will vote yes.

 

[The Ripper]

Hello fellow Ram fans. Just wanted to share a couple observations I'm sure have been discussed already.

Nixon requested a jump up in the the time line the NFL has given. It helped to set the date of the NFL owners meeting in AUG where all 32 owners will attend.

June 22 is the date Chargers and Raiders present the proposal to the city of Carson.

I've been asked before "what is there to present?" I can only speculate on that. I'm not sure if it will be a presentation to the public or to city officials behind a closed door. One thing is all but certain, it is sure to make headlines one way or the other.

Stop posting that because it's not true. The meeting is not on St Louis but LA relocation. Nixon can say that but the NFL has talked about a meeting for months and they set their meetings not a politician.

 

[den-the-coach]

lol yes but the counter claim to that is that its "old news". In the same token, its the only thing you'll find him saying on the subject

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_3b49e97d-2799-50aa-8b7b-5a82bf5d5a4b.html

And he did everything in his power, Kroenke came up with a plan to improve the Dome to make an upper tier stadium which the Convention Center Management rejected thus Kroenke took them to court and won, so in essence he's done everything in his power to keep them in St. Louis.

Hey like I posted I have no dog in this hunt and I've seen it from both sides, but if you're going to communicate he's (Kroenke) never indicated he wants to move then you need to communicate he has never indicated he would embrace the new stadium project in St. Louis either! Fair is Fair!