New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Sum1]

Its not about me liking it or not, I was just referring to what you said you thought.I just imagine the NFL doesn't want to send the message its okay to make promises to them you have no intention of keeping.

Nothing was promised. If the building is top tier the Rams have no option. If it isn't, the Rams have an option.

If it rains, I put on a poncho. If it doesn't, I don't.

 

[ChrisW]

No, it's not part of stadium construction. Just like in Atlanta, NY or even Carson. In SD they the total was 1.4 but the they show 1.1. The total real public contribution in Atlanta is close to 600 million but no one talks about that.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/...g-600m-thanks-to-state-funded-parking-garage/

"That’s deceptive. $300 million of that is for ordinary maintenance and upgrades, which are absolutely necessary if Atlanta is going to keep the SEC Championship Game and probably necessary if Atlanta is going to keep the Peach Bowl in the CFB Playoff rotation. It’s not like that’s a Falcons subsidy."

 

[The Ripper]

"That’s deceptive. $300 million of that is for ordinary maintenance and upgrades, which are absolutely necessary if Atlanta is going to keep the SEC Championship Game and probably necessary if Atlanta is going to keep the Peach Bowl in the CFB Playoff rotation. It’s not like that’s a Falcons subsidy."

Still public money. Look at MetLife. The teams get the land which they pay rent but it's not that much plus the parking structures were paid by the local communities through a bond issue.

I agree all public money should be included but unfortunately that's not the case.

 

[Sum1]

Right, but the proposed new deal is worth less than the original deal which the city chose not stick with. And the question is: How will that sit with the NFL?

Which original deal?

 

[MrMotes]

Which original deal?

The one with the CVC, you know the one where the arbitrators said it would cost $700 million to stay in compliance and the city chose not to, that one...

 

[Sum1]

The one with the CVC, you know the one where the arbitrators said it would cost $700 million to stay in compliance and the city chose not to, that one...

When was there a deal struck? That was arbitration to determine what upgrades would be first tier. It wasn't an agreement that was binding between the two parties. There was no "deal".

 

[OldSchool]

Other way around - the Rams triggered the clause, not St.Louis.. And Kroenke's offer was for something he knew wouldn't happen - asking for over $700 million in upgrades without offering or stating how much the Rams would be willing to cover.

It's been posted in here before, the Rams offer ended with asking the CVC to get an estimate and come up with a plan to cover the cost. It did not say the Rams wouldn't pay for it. The CVC refused to even get an estimate or figure out who would pay for what. They just threw the $700 million price tag on it and refused to go further with it. I don't know why it bothers me but this keeps getting thrown out there that the Rams weren't willing to pay for any of their suggested upgrades but that's just not true. We'll never know now what they were willing to pay for. But in the end it could have been cheaper for the City/State to take the Rams upgrade options.

 

[The Ripper]

When was there a deal struck? That was arbitration to determine what upgrades would be first tier. It wasn't an agreement that was binding between the two parties. There was no "deal".

In 1995 with the relocation agreement, the lease for the facility in 1995 and again in 2007. The NFL has also approved the lease twice which includes this which the name has has been updated from the original lease in 2007.

"the RAMS will then be entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate from [the Edward Jones Dome] as of the end of any year of the lease period."

 

[Sum1]

In 1995 with the relocation agreement, the lease for the facility in 1995 and again in 2007. The NFL has also approved the lease twice which includes this which the name has has been updated from the original lease in 2007.

"the RAMS will then be entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate from [the Edward Jones Dome] as of the end of any year of the lease period."

That isn't the "deal" the other poster was alluding to. He was referring to the arbitration as a "deal". It wasn't. And what you are posting has absolutely no relevance to this particular part of the discussion. But, let me point out that the wording in that statement says relocating from the dome, it doesn't state the city of St. Louis.

 

[The Ripper]

That isn't the "deal" the other poster was alluding to. He was referring to the arbitration as a "deal". It wasn't. And what you are posting has absolutely no relevance to this particular part of the discussion. But, let me point out that the wording in that statement says relocating from the dome, it doesn't state the city of St. Louis.

Arbitration only matter in regards to a proposal that would to satisfy the March 1 2015 first tier requirement and that deal comes from the amended 2007 lease.

The Rams can "negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity". No restrictions

 

[Rmfnlt]

The one with the CVC, you know the one where the arbitrators said it would cost $700 million to stay in compliance and the city chose not to, that one...

Oh... you must mean the $700 million that never really was a realistic option, that one...

 

[Sum1]

Arbitration only matter in regards to a proposal that would to satisfy the March 1 2015 first tier requirement and that deal comes from the amended 2007 lease.

So we are in agreement that the arbitration was not a deal or an agreement.

Rams can "negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity". No restrictions

The NFL bylaws seem to state that teams are to attempt to make their market work and not abandon it anytime their lease ends. All I was pointing out was that this particular part doesn't dismiss that fact.

 

[WillasDad]

I don't understand how the deal wasn't lived up to. It was, top tier stadium or the team opts out. Guess what, the team opted out. It's all part of the deal in itself. The next part is arbitration. They ruled that the Rams figure was closer to the right number to put the stadium back into that top tier status (and I agree. I just think pushing 700M on taxpayers alone was a non starter, along with closing the dome.)

That's where it ends. The North-Riverfront stadium is a completely new deal. A couple of lawsuits away from 50% public funding, and a owner contribution away from strong corporate support.

I'm very confused by people who keep saying this. Seems to me that the CVC allowed for the Rams to opt-out, not because it was their choice, but because they were unable to honor their promise to provide a top-tier stadium. I'd love to see the original contract that helped draw the Rams away from SoCal to determine if indeed the top-tier noncompliance can truly be construed as anything but an event of default. Really, allowing the Rams to go year-to-year seems like the very worst outcome possible for the CVC and St. Louis/Missouri.

 

[Sum1]

I'm very confused by people who keep saying this. Seems to me that the CVC allowed for the Rams to opt-out, not because it was their choice, but because they were unable to honor their promise to provide a top-tier stadium. I'd love to see the original contract that helped draw the Rams away from SoCal to determine if indeed the top-tier noncompliance can truly be construed as anything but an event of default. Really, allowing the Rams to go year-to-year seems like the very worst outcome possible for the CVC and St. Louis/Missouri.

It wasn't a promise.

If the building isn't in the top tier the contract states the Rams can opt out of the 30 year agreement and go year to year.

 

[The Ripper]

So we are in agreement that the arbitration was not a deal or an agreement.

Yes, arbitration was non binding and it only told the CVC what they had to do to meet the first tier requirement.

The NFL bylaws seem to state that teams are to attempt to make their market work and not abandon it anytime their lease ends. All I was pointing out was that this particular part doesn't dismiss that fact.

None of the relocation guidelines are part of the bylaws. The only relocation bylaw is 4.3 which is a vote of 3/4 of the owners.

The NFL approves all lease and in the case of the Rams it has been at least twice. If there was a conflict, the lease would have been changed by the NFL.

 

[Sum1]

Yes, arbitration was non binding and it only told the CVC what they had to do to meet the first tier requirement.



None of the relocation guidelines are part of the bylaws. The only relocation bylaw is 4.3 which is a vote of 3/4 of the owners.

The NFL approves all lease and in the case of the Rams it has been at least twice. If there was a conflict, the lease would have been changed by the NFL.

Fair enough, I was referring to the relocation guidelines. I was using the wrong terminology if that is the case.

Who is arguing that there was anything wrong with the lease contract? I've never made any claim there was a problem with the lease. Seems like this conversation has been about WHAT the lease is, not whether there was a problem with it.

 

[WillasDad]

It wasn't a promise.

If the building isn't in the top tier the contract states the Rams can opt out of the 30 year agreement and go year to year.

Have you actually read the contract or are you going off what you've heard others say?

 

[The Ripper]

Allowing the Rams to go year to year is the best outcome for the CVC. The lease was constructed to favor the Rams not the CVC. Year to year with no recourse would not be favorable to the Rams so the lease provided for the Rams to negotiate and execute a lease with anyone plus relocate from the dome.

 

[WillasDad]

Allowing the Rams to go year to year is the best outcome for the CVC. The lease was constructed to favor the Rams not the CVC. Year to year with no recourse would not be favorable to the Rams so the lease provided for the Rams to negotiate and execute a lease with anyone plus relocate from the dome.

Perhaps I'm not getting you, but allowing the Rams to go year to year is how the Rams will be leaving St. Louis. I don't see how that is a good outcome for the CVC. They divested themselves of the obligation to provide top-tier but now have to deal with the backlash that will come from allowing the Rams to leave.

 

[blue4]

We've been thru this CVC discussion before. I see as much chance on agreement this time around as before.

What I find weird, or fascinating, about this and many other discussions on here and in news organizations is that other owners seem like befuddled children to some people. They don't understand contracts, they don't remember or care about the circumstances regarding the Rams last move, they have no self respect being perfectly fine with dealing with minions. People kind of portray them as a poor, downtrodden group easily lead and manipulated. They'll believe things like the Rams and the Chargers organizations being on the same footing without ever glancing at a record or playoff berths. Spanos in particular is portrayed as a down on his luck shyster who couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. Meanwhile, Stan Kroenke's wealth, omnipotence, and power apparently is unparalleled in the NFL. He can see the results of lawsuits before they happen. He can browbeat other billionaires unchallenged. He can leap tall buildings in a single bound. A man who makes Goldman Sachs look like rank amateurs in the stadium game.

To me, it's a 50-50 shot between Carson and Inglewood. There is no telling whether other owners will buy Stan's power play. And there is no guarantee that Stan wins any lawsuit he files. My own personal opinion used to be 60-40 chance Stan wins and moves. It's about 55-45 now. Not due to what's going on in St Louis. Without solid finance being released, it's effectively still in the theory stage. It's because Carson seems to be moving much more than I ever thought it would, and the Spanos/Davis team genuinely SEEMS to have better sympathy from the NFL. I get the sense that everything equal, they'd prefer Carson. It really is the only way they keep the St Louis market, which may not be the largest but it ain't chump change either.
Anyway just my impressions, not pointed at any person or news organization in particular.