New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

From what I can tell the biggest hurdles with stadiums are where does it go, what does it look like, who pays for it, and how do you get the land, with the last two being the most important.

So far, LA has all of those figured out, if you assume the stadium they drew up is the one they want, which isn't certain at this time. St Louis has 2 out of the 4, if you assume what it looks like stands (which is doubtful), but the last two are up in the air, which is big. At this point, unless LA is a big bluff, St Louis definitely has more hurdles. The problem is while Stan seems willing to put up his own money in LA, he's not in St Louis, and that makes it much harder for them.

Getting the land will not be a problem, I'm very confident in saying that. To me the biggest hurdle will be the part about selling the electorate on public funds, though I think they will get that done as well. If Stan ultimately ends up getting blocked from going to LA(if he truly intends on going), then he would almost have no choice but to pony up for the new stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Getting the land will not be a problem, I'm very confident in saying that. To me the biggest hurdle will be the part about selling the electorate on public funds, though I think they will get that done as well. If Stan ultimately ends up getting blocked from going to LA(if he truly intends on going), then he would almost have no choice but to pony up for the new stadium.

Which is part of why I don't think he gets blocked. He'll make that argument, and it'll be a big one in his favor.

 

[dbrooks25]

Which is part of why I don't think he gets blocked. He'll make that argument, and it'll be a big one in his favor.

Make what argument, that he doesn't want to put any of his own money into the stadium? If that's the case, I can't see how that is a valid argument. We will find out this year if the state will go for refinancing the bonds, so there won't be an argument there. If they vote "no" then done deal. If it's a "yes" then what argument will he really have?

 

[RamFan503]

They didn't administer a contract they had no intention of fulfilling, they opted not to extend the current crappy contract. The NFL shouldn't have a problem with the new lease unless it differs greatly from the leases that other teams are paying for new stadiums.

They offered up a "plan" they knew was a non-starter. In doing so, they lost a pretty one sided arbitration. That is not opting to not extend the current contract. And agreed. A crappy contract for the city, it was.

You may be right about the NFL not having a problem with the lease if it is similar to other leases. I could see that. I doubt though that they would be able to argue that the deal that was in place that got the Rams to move to St Louis is being honored if it is substantially different in favor of the city. I just don't see them being able to deny Stan's argument (if he choses to go that route) if that is the case.

 

[blue4]

They offered up a "plan" they knew was a non-starter. In doing so, they lost a pretty one sided arbitration. That is not opting to not extend the current contract. And agreed. A crappy contract for the city, it was.

You may be right about the NFL not having a problem with the lease if it is similar to other leases. I could see that. I doubt though that they would be able to argue that the deal that was in place that got the Rams to move to St Louis is being honored if it is substantially different in favor of the city. I just don't see them being able to deny Stan's argument (if he choses to go that route) if that is the case.

What argument does Stan actually have? The sweetheart deal that allowed me to cash in better than most other owners expired and now that I can't continue getting a better deal than you fools I want to leave? What actual argument does he have, and why would other owners who had to follow procedures or who put up cash on new stadiums care for Stan's "problem". So far he has 1 owner in Jones who's in his corner, at least 2 against in Spanos and Davis, and the chairman of the stadium committee who's already publicly lukewarm.
As for offering up an unrealistic plan, expecting any facility to stay in the upper 25% seems to defy logic. A lease expired, and neither party was interested in continuing it. I don't see the "being honored" problem at all. The arbitration ruling was fully expected, even wanted in some cases, and was just the start of the process. Not an indictment of the city.

 

[Boffo97]

A lease expired, and neither party was interested in continuing it.

Did the lease really "expire" technically? Wasn't it, on paper, good for another 10 years? I'm sure the Rams would argue the CVC ended it by refusing to live up to the top tier clause... and that phrasing will probably be important to both side's arguments.

 

[blue4]

Make what argument, that he doesn't want to put any of his own money into the stadium? If that's the case, I can't see how that is a valid argument. We will find out this year if the state will go for refinancing the bonds, so there won't be an argument there. If they vote "no" then done deal. If it's a "yes" then what argument will he really have?

Davis has come out and said he could go to 500 million and the stadium in Oakland is still floundering. Our guy has more money than Davis in his limos ashtray, and people still claim he's got enough reason to move. I don't get it.

 

[blue4]

Did the lease really "expire" technically? Wasn't it, on paper, good for another 10 years? I'm sure the Rams would argue the CVC ended it by refusing to live up to the top tier clause... and that phrasing will probably be important to both side's arguments.

Only if 700 million were added in. I don't see anyone really being helped by the wording in the old lease. It's basically a standard lease. If the house I rent out costs more to update than the house is worth, I don't see anyone faulting me or the tenant for ending the lease when allowed to. I really think it all comes down to the new stadium. I don't see why another owner cares as long as the new stadium is going forward.

 

[rhinobean]

Only if 700 million were added in. I don't see anyone really being helped by the wording in the old lease. It's basically a standard lease. If the house I rent out costs more to update than the house is worth, I don't see anyone faulting me or the tenant for ending the lease when allowed to. I really think it all comes down to the new stadium. I don't see why another owner cares as long as the new stadium is going forward.

Yes and the 700 million additional was just for the updates! Did not reference the loss of use for the convention center for 3 years nor the fact that all that money was public funds, none was Kroenke's money! Plus, it would only extend the lease for 10 years! Any wonder why the CVC wanted to let the lease go toyear to year? Seems Stan wanted his cake and to eat it too!

 

[RamFan503]

What argument does Stan actually have? The sweetheart deal that allowed me to cash in better than most other owners expired and now that I can't continue getting a better deal than you fools I want to leave? What actual argument does he have, and why would other owners who had to follow procedures or who put up cash on new stadiums care for Stan's "problem". So far he has 1 owner in Jones who's in his corner, at least 2 against in Spanos and Davis, and the chairman of the stadium committee who's already publicly lukewarm.
As for offering up an unrealistic plan, expecting any facility to stay in the upper 25% seems to defy logic. A lease expired, and neither party was interested in continuing it. I don't see the "being honored" problem at all. The arbitration ruling was fully expected, even wanted in some cases, and was just the start of the process. Not an indictment of the city.

Weird. I wonder why your post had my statements but quoted Blue.

In any case, the way I understand the contract, it was the Rams option to go month to month if the top tier clause was not met. That would mean that the CVC did not live up to their end, thereby giving the Rams the option to opt out. This is the same CVC that didn't live up to the first benchmark some ten years earlier. The lease doesn't actually expire for another ten years. If the CVC fully expected and even wanted the contract to end, I don't see how you can argue that they acted in keeping with the terms THEY came up with.

I get that it was a bad deal for the city. But people make one sided deals all the time. It sucks for the people on the losing end but while I would guess that several owners were likely jealous of the deal the Rams got, I highly doubt any of them would hold it against Stan as they know they would have done it too. Keep in mind also that Stan only officially became majority owner a little over four years ago. So Georgia's family actually benefitted from most of this great deal.

It's actually pretty simple really. The Rams signed an agreement with the CVC. He never signed anything with the people who are working on the stadium deal now. I realize there are differences between the NFL and many other businesses but if I am a corporation and I have a lease to operate out of a building and the owner of that building fails to live up to terms, I am under zero obligation to stay in the city that houses that building when someone else comes forward with an offer to house my business in a different building. And taxpayer dollars don't change that as many large corporations receive incentives from cities/counties/states. So while the NFL might want to keep teams in their market, I really don't see how they could win if it went to court. You may not think Stan has an argument but I'd have to guess the courts would see it completely different.

I actually haven't seen anything from Davis that says he would vote against the move. Minor point I realize but I just haven't seen these supposed 9 votes Spanos claims to have in his pocket.

 

[Boffo97]

Only if 700 million were added in. I don't see anyone really being helped by the wording in the old lease. It's basically a standard lease. If the house I rent out costs more to update than the house is worth, I don't see anyone faulting me or the tenant for ending the lease when allowed to. I really think it all comes down to the new stadium. I don't see why another owner cares as long as the new stadium is going forward.

I think you're kind of missing the point though... I'm thinking of what the Rams (if they want to move) will argue. Part of my argument would certainly be "Hey, St. Louis could have guaranteed we didn't move if they wanted to. They disagreed with us on what was necessary to fulfill the top tier clause, and when the arbitrator ruled that they were wrong to do so, they chose to break that clause." I'm not sure that said upgrades would have cost more than the dome is worth though. And it would be pointed out that St. Louis signed the lease with that clause of their own free will.

I think (even assuming that the bylaws are going to be as ironclad as some hope) that the Rams need merely to create doubt that St. Louis' effort to keep them is both good faith and realistic. And even then, Stan would almost certainly file a lawsuit if he doesn't get his way.

 

[RamFan503]

Seems Stan wanted his cake and to eat it too!

AKA the best deal he could get. Pretty much what anyone wants for their side.

Time will tell really. I think we are all just kind of going in circles now rehashing old information. I don't want St Louis to lose the Rams even though if they moved back to LA that would mean I could probably go to a game with my dad. It would totally be a blast from the past. Still, I think St Louis was sold down the river by those who wanted ANY NFL team to play in the Dome and were willing to do practically anything to get it done.

Now we're looking at a contest of opportunities. And I think there are really only two factors involved. Does Stan want to stay? And can the Nixon group put together an actionable plan that is acceptable to Stan. I really don't think when it all comes down to it that the NFL will have much of a say beyond maybe urging one over the other.

 

[rhinobean]

AKA the best deal he could get. Pretty much what anyone wants for their side.

Time will tell really. I think we are all just kind of going in circles now rehashing old information. I don't want St Louis to lose the Rams even though if they moved back to LA that would mean I could probably go to a game with my dad. It would totally be a blast from the past. Still, I think St Louis was sold down the river by those who wanted ANY NFL team to play in the Dome and were willing to do practically anything to get it done. of the team

Now we're looking at a contest of opportunities. And I think there are really only two factors involved. Does Stan want to stay? And can the Nixon group put together an actionable plan that is acceptable to Stan. I really don't think when it all comes down to it that the NFL will have much of a say beyond maybe urging one over the other.

I agree! The talk about using the dome as a reason to say that Kroenke has a legit excuse for bailing is bogus! The legit, sort of, reason is that he can make more money and increase the value of the team by moving to LA! The folks on both sides who negotiated the first lease did, indeed, sell STL down the river!

 

[blue4]

I think you're kind of missing the point though... I'm thinking of what the Rams (if they want to move) will argue. Part of my argument would certainly be "Hey, St. Louis could have guaranteed we didn't move if they wanted to. They disagreed with us on what was necessary to fulfill the top tier clause, and when the arbitrator ruled that they were wrong to do so, they chose to break that clause." I'm not sure that said upgrades would have cost more than the dome is worth though. And it would be pointed out that St. Louis signed the lease with that clause of their own free will.

I think (even assuming that the bylaws are going to be as ironclad as some hope) that the Rams need merely to create doubt that St. Louis' effort to keep them is both good faith and realistic. And even then, Stan would almost certainly file a lawsuit if he doesn't get his way.

But the arbitrator just ruled on who was closer to what was considered top 25%. He didn't pass judgment on who was in the right or wrong, or say that the Rams now have the right to move. He provided nothing more than a judgment on terms of a lease. I think that I'm not the one missing the point. Stan has put a lot of groundwork into his new stadium in LA. So by your logic, wouldn't it be Stan who didn't negotiate in good faith? Since he was already deep into another city before there was any type of ruling? It's really pretty obvious that he's been working on this for some time. Again, one could make an argument using your logic that Stan didn't even buy the rest of the team in good faith, since there's plenty of indication that he never intended to work with St Louis. The only way Stan moves this team by the right way is if the voters don't play ball. If Stan moves any other way, it's because his mighty billions influenced the other lesser billionaires to allow it. I'm not saying that won't happen, nor am I passing judgment on any LA fan who hopes it happens. I would too. I just don't understand the rush to justify it.

 

[Boffo97]

But the arbitrator just ruled on who was closer to what was considered top 25%. He didn't pass judgment on who was in the right or wrong, or say that the Rams now have the right to move. He provided nothing more than a judgment on terms of a lease.

I'm pretty sure the arbitrator had the right to rule for neither proposal and suggest something in the middle. I *may* be wrong about that, but if I'm not, it's telling that he chose the Rams proposal as what would meet the criteria of top tier stadium. But either way, it was the CVC who rejected it. And I'm just saying that's going to show up in the Rams' arguments.

As to whether St. Louis has a case that Stan didn't negotiate in good faith, I'm not arguing against that. To me, unless he's pulling a record setting leverage ploy (which I don't think is the case), it's pretty obvious he wants to move. I just think all he needs to do is create doubt that St. Louis did everything in their power to keep the team.

 

[blue4]

I'm pretty sure the arbitrator had the right to rule for neither proposal and suggest something in the middle. I *may* be wrong about that, but if I'm not, it's telling that he chose the Rams proposal as what would meet the criteria of top tier stadium. But either way, it was the CVC who rejected it. And I'm just saying that's going to show up in the Rams' arguments.

As to whether St. Louis has a case that Stan didn't negotiate in good faith, I'm not arguing against that. To me, unless he's pulling a record setting leverage ploy (which I don't think is the case), it's pretty obvious he wants to move. I just think all he needs to do is create doubt that St. Louis did everything in their power to keep the team.

You're right the arbitrator did side with the Rams, and the CVC rejected it. But what's telling about that? The terms were obviously one sided. The arbitrator ruled on the terms of the lease. He did not pass judgement on either side. When the CVC rejected the terms, he didn't stand up and say "You people are out of line!" It was a simple lease for a set time, with THE OPTION to back out if certain criteria were no longer able to be met. That happened, and the Rams exercised their option. They had that right, and they have a right to ask for a new stadium. But it's extremely unreasonable or realistic to assume a need to move just because there wasn't ground moved before the ruling, or even a smidgen of commitment from the Rams that they would stay if one were built. Especially when the actual fan commitment has been good. My point is Stan isn't going to create doubt in anyone's mind to justify moving. It will be his money that convinces the other owners, not talk of his "hardship".

 

[Boffo97]

You're right the arbitrator did side with the Rams, and the CVC rejected it. But what's telling about that? The terms were obviously one sided. The arbitrator ruled on the terms of the lease. He did not pass judgement on either side. When the CVC rejected the terms, he didn't stand up and say "You people are out of line!" It was a simple lease for a set time, with THE OPTION to back out if certain criteria were no longer able to be met. That happened, and the Rams exercised their option. They had that right, and they have a right to ask for a new stadium. But it's extremely unreasonable or realistic to assume a need to move just because there wasn't ground moved before the ruling, or even a smidgen of commitment from the Rams that they would stay if one were built. Especially when the actual fan commitment has been good. My point is Stan isn't going to create doubt in anyone's mind to justify moving. It will be his money that convinces the other owners, not talk of his "hardship".

I didn't say there was a judgment on either side. I didn't say anyone was out of line. I said, and I think the Rams' argument will be, that it was the CVC's decision to end the lease. That's it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Make what argument, that he doesn't want to put any of his own money into the stadium? If that's the case, I can't see how that is a valid argument. We will find out this year if the state will go for refinancing the bonds, so there won't be an argument there. If they vote "no" then done deal. If it's a "yes" then what argument will he really have?

Well if Stan would be forced to pony up for the new stadium if blocked from moving, he could make the argument "why should I be forced to pay for a new stadium in a city I don't want to be in? If I'm paying shouldn't I get to choose where I'm going to have my team?" What can the owners really say? Tough shit? I don't see that happening. I think without funding figured out, voted on, its going to be tough to convince the owners he should be forced into saying.

 

[dbrooks25]

Well if Stan would be forced to pony up for the new stadium if blocked from moving, he could make the argument "why should I be forced to pay for a new stadium in a city I don't want to be in? If I'm paying shouldn't I get to choose where I'm going to have my team?" What can the owners really say? Tough crap? I don't see that happening. I think without funding figured out, voted on, its going to be tough to convince the owners he should be forced into saying.

Huh? If he's forced to stay, and he doesn't want to pay then they will just keep going year to year on the dome. Me thinks that if the Rams stay, that Stan would have no problems paying just $200 million toward a new stadium that will undoubtedly increase the value of his franchise by much more than the $200 million he's investing. Also, it's been reported that Stan doesn't have anything against the city of St. Louis, but it's the fact that the money in LA would be huge. With that, if he's forced to stay I seriously doubt he would not be willing to put up some money for a brand new stadium.

 

[RamFan503]

Huh? If he's forced to stay, and he doesn't want to pay then they will just keep going year to year on the dome. Me thinks that if the Rams stay, that Stan would have no problems paying just $200 million toward a new stadium that will undoubtedly increase the value of his franchise by much more than the $200 million he's investing. Also, it's been reported that Stan doesn't have anything against the city of St. Louis, but it's the fact that the money in LA would be huge. With that, if he's forced to stay I seriously doubt he would not be willing to put up some money for a brand new stadium.

I wonder how much of this is truly about the money and how much is about the prestige. It's really hard for any of us to think they can crawl inside the mind of a guy like Stan. All we can do is guess. But when you think about the actual money going into Stan's pocket, it may indeed not be a huge improvement in LA over what he enjoys with a favorable lease and all. I just wonder if the project in LA is so grand that it is hard for him to resist. From the looks of it, it may just be the crown jewel of stadiums/sports complexes in the entire NFL. Just going by the purdy pictures here.

Anyway, just a thought I've been thinking. Maybe nothing to it.