New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[WillasDad]

No, I was actually referring to not getting far with the other posters in this thread. Nothing to do with threatening you at all. Will be clearer next time.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[WillasDad]

Its looking more and more like San Diego and Oakland wont get anything done with their stadium situations. It just seems to be lining up perfectly to solve all three stadium situations with the Raiders and Chargers in Carson or even Inglewood and the Rams staying in St Louis with the new riverfront stadium. This would be a win win win for the NFL.

Doesn't sound like a win win for Oakland, San Diego, or Stan Kroenke.

 

[tahoe]

Doesn't sound like a win win for Oakland, San Diego, or Stan Kroenke.

Both Oakland and San Diego had many, many, many chances to do what Missouri and St Louis are doing to keep the Rams and have failed to do so. I do feel bad for those fan bases as I don't want any fan base to lose their team but someone has to lose their team(s) and I don't want it to be St Louis. To be fair it wont be too bad for Charger fans as they will only be about a 2 hour drive to watch their team. Oakland fans would get the shaft but unfortunately someone is going to. But in the NFLs eyes its a win because there will not be any lost markets, the bay area still has the 49ers and the Chargers will still be close enough to still service San Diego.

 

[WillasDad]

Both Oakland and San Diego had many, many, many chances to do what Missouri and St Louis are doing to keep the Rams and have failed to do so. I do feel bad for those fan bases as I don't want any fan base to lose their team but someone has to lose their team(s) and I don't want it to be St Louis. To be fair it wont be too bad for Charger fans as they will only be about a 2 hour drive to watch their team. Oakland fans would get the shaft but unfortunately someone is going to. But in the NFLs eyes its a win because there will not be any lost markets, the bay area still has the 49ers and the Chargers will still be close enough to still service San Diego.

Somebody said this previously and I think it bears repeating. If LA can lose a team, anyone can. The NFL has lived without the LA market for 20 years. Anyway, the issue is really one thing. Can anyone stop SK from building come December? If so, then Carson has a chance. If not, try convincing Goldman Sachs to follow through with their promise to finance a stadium while another one is being built not 10 miles away. Their projections are set under the 2 teams in Carson only scenario, or at least that's what I believe.

 

[iced]

Somebody said this previously and I think it bears repeating. If LA can lose a team, anyone can. The NFL has lived without the LA market for 20 years. Anyway, the issue is really one thing. Can anyone stop SK from building come December? If so, then Carson has a chance. If not, try convincing Goldman Sachs to follow through with their promise to finance a stadium while another one is being built not 10 miles away. Their projections are set under the 2 teams in Carson only scenario, or at least that's what I believe.

The league believes they can, particularly Rooney.

However it all comes back to what's best for the league and all the owners, not Stan himself - which is why its a "win/win" for Oakland and San Diego. They don't have any realistic options at this point, and are also the only two cities that don't have a realistic stadium alternative like St.Louis if they're told no. A big reason why I think Carson is the bigger money maker is: 1) two teams, 2)you're losing a market and not replacing it, while also competing with a near by market 3) Davis/Spanos don't have another alternative, and I don't think the other owners are going to tell Spanos to keep waiting for a realistic deal to come around, particularly after 14 years. People slam him for "dissing" San Diego's plan, but I've yet to see one that's viable or realistic.

If the NFL has proven one thing through this process it's that they're not going to wait for a city to get all their ducks lined up come decision time. Financing, land - everything has to be secured for when they say go, the construction starts immediately....Anything that has a contingency that the other owners/stadium committee feel could halt or kill the plan will not pass, let alone be determined viable. Just like if the Riverfront financing doesn't come through, the deal is dead unless Peacock has another magical way to secure the financing. I think that's actually a good example. The common belief is that the financing and land will all be wrapped up come August - do you think the NFL would hitch their wagons to that plan without a "Definite yes"? Nope, and we all know St.Louis has the strongest plan of the 3 cities.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The league believes they can, particularly Rooney.

They said they believe they can take someone on in court over moving without approval, nothing about stopping someone from building. Completely different things.

 

[iced]

They said they believe they can take someone on in court over moving without approval, nothing about stopping someone from building. Completely different things.

I don't think he's going to spend $2 billion on a stadium if he can't use it

 

[WillasDad]

The league believes they can, particularly Rooney.

However it all comes back to what's best for the league and all the owners, not Stan himself - which is why its a "win/win" for Oakland and San Diego. They don't have any realistic options at this point, and are also the only two cities that don't have a realistic stadium alternative like St.Louis if they're told no. A big reason why I think Carson is the bigger money maker is: 1) two teams, 2)you're losing a market and not replacing it, while also competing with a near by market 3) Davis/Spanos don't have another alternative, and I don't think the other owners are going to tell Spanos to keep waiting for a realistic deal to come around, particularly after 14 years. People slam him for "dissing" San Diego's plan, but I've yet to see one that's viable or realistic.

If the NFL has proven one thing through this process it's that they're not going to wait for a city to get all their ducks lined up come decision time. Financing, land - everything has to be secured for when they say go, the construction starts immediately....Anything that has a contingency that the other owners/stadium committee feel could halt or kill the plan will not pass, let alone be determined viable. Just like if the Riverfront financing doesn't come through, the deal is dead unless Peacock has another magical way to secure the financing. I think that's actually a good example. The common belief is that the financing and land will all be wrapped up come August - do you think the NFL would hitch their wagons to that plan without a "Definite yes"? Nope, and we all know St.Louis has the strongest plan of the 3 cities.

I don't know the man nor have I kept track of his business dealings, but I get the feeling he's not the most astute owner and frankly, I think he's waited too long. Taking 14 years to come to a solution is just as damning to the owners as it is to the cities who house their teams. The reason they haven't come to a deal may very well be a matter of Spanos' own incompetence.

The NFL, much like the NBA, has taken on a cultural change over the years. Family owned teams who've owned the team for genenrations will be going by the wayside as corporations and/or billionaires start to force their will on the league. It makes sense. These new owners invest billions of dollars to get into the NFL owners club. The last thing they care about is some trust fund kids telling them what they can and can't do. If it isn't overtly clear, Dean Spanos and Mark Davis fall into that category. SK will sue and even though internal rules in the NFL may have been created to defend against rogue owners, I'd bet they are still very much vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits. Either way, I don't see it getting that far.

At the end of the day, it comes down to it, the NFL/Goodell will side with those who can pay to play (including pay for their own stadiums) and you can guess which side each of the parties lie within.

 

[iced]

I don't know the man nor have I kept track of his business dealings, but I get the feeling he's not the most astute owner and frankly, I think he's waited too long. Taking 14 years to come to a solution is just as damning to the owners as it is to the cities who house their teams. The reason they haven't come to a deal may very well be a matter of Spanos' own incompetence.

Except for the bit about working in good faith, which also comes into play when needing votes from among other owners when pitted next to a guy who's barely had control of the team for 5 years

The NFL, much like the NBA, has taken on a cultural change over the years. Family owned teams who've owned the team for genenrations will be going by the wayside as corporations and/or billionaires start to force their will on the league. It makes sense. These new owners invest billions of dollars to get into the NFL owners club. The last thing they care about is some trust fund kids telling them what they can and can't do.

The last thing the owners want is some rogue owner dictating what the league does and doesn't do.

If it isn't overtly clear, Dean Spanos and Mark Davis fall into that category. SK will sue and even though internal rules in the NFL may have been created to defend against rogue owners

Yet again, it's been rumored/reported that SK will abide by committee's decision. And the league could make life hell on Kroenke should he go against him down the line. It is not like the 90's or 80's.

I'd bet they are still very much vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits.

Could easily go both ways - depends on what is written into the contracts between the NFL and owners. And all you have to do is look the black out rule situation - FCC told them to stop, NFL didn't have to because of how it was written into their tv contracts with the providers, congress/senators threaten anti-trust status, black out rule magically gone

At the end of the day, it comes down to it, the NFL/Goodell will side with those who can pay to play, and you can guess which side each of the parties lie within.

Well with Goldman Sachs in the mix, money I don't think becomes an issue - more importantly, its about money in their pockets and TV contracts, while finding what they deem as the best solution for all 3 parties involved.

 

[OldSchool]

The league believes they can, particularly Rooney.

Rooney also said this:

He also said that a team that moves to L.A. "must have a solid stadium plan in place, one that has cleared all the required political, environmental impact and financial hurdles"

Carson has yet to clear the environmental hurdle and it seems just like the St Louis stadium to have political fight still to resolve. St Louis' political fight being around financials.

It is going to be an interesting procedure, we have Rooney who doesn't appear to be picking sides just wants the thing to follow league guidelines. You have a couple guys like Kraft and Jones who seem to be supporting Kroenke. And you have Spanos and his supposed support that's enough to block the Rams from moving to LA. Time to get out the popcorn and see how this all comes to fruition.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't think he's going to spend $2 billion on a stadium if he can't use it

I don't either, but they can't stop him from building if he wants to.

 

[WillasDad]

@iced, you bring up good points, but the only thing with these lawsuits is simce it could go either way, the next question you ask is who has more to lose. SK loses, he pays the cost of litigation. What's that, a few million and a chance to try to move again the following year? The NFL loses, well, that would be really bad.

I'll try to answer your other points when I get on a computer. Smart phone typing sucks.

 

[ChrisW]

St Louis' political fight being around financials.

We don't know how much of a fight it's going to be, but I believe it starts this thursday. We'll know what's going on then.

 

[iced]

@iced, you bring up good points, but the only thing with these lawsuits is simce it could go either way, the next question you ask is who has more to lose. SK loses, he pays the cost of litigation. What's that, a few million and a chance to try to move again the following year? The NFL loses, well, that would be really bad.

I'll try to answer your other points when I get on a computer. Smart phone typing sucks.

Oh it'll be more, a lot more, than just a "couple million" (additionally, the by laws state he'd lose his share of the tv market contracts which is $200 million per team last year in addition to revenue share of merchandising, which i think was around $100 million per team...and the TV shares are increasing every year..this doesn't include other actions the NFL could take like withholding super bowls, etc... basically they can make life really hard, and in the end would it really be worth it?) - but the legal aspect and what could/might happen is honestly going to be way more complicated than whole the stadium fiasco. Especially with how the laws are written and there's no way to know what or how the NFL has altered their contracts prevent such a move.. And until we hear that Kroenke is going to pursue legal action, its pointless to debate. The only word we've heard as such is that kroenke would not go against the committee.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Oh it'll be more, a lot more, than just a "couple million" (additionally, the by laws state he'd lose his share of the tv market contracts which is $200 million per team last year in addition to revenue share of merchandising, which i think was around $100 million per team...and the TV shares are increasing every year..this doesn't include other actions the NFL could take like withholding super bowls, etc... basically they can make life really hard, and in the end would it really be worth it?) - but the legal aspect and what could/might happen is honestly going to be way more complicated than whole the stadium fiasco. Especially with how the laws are written and there's no way to know what or how the NFL has altered their contracts prevent such a move.. And until we hear that Kroenke is going to pursue legal action, its pointless to debate. The only word we've heard as such is that kroenke would not go against the committee.

If he doesn't get his share of TV revenues or merchandising revenues, he would be free to make his own deals correct? Similar to Jerry Jones, who makes a lot more money not sharing merchandising than he would by sharing, if I recall.

So then Kroenke could do that with LA, and then also make his own TV deals, which would be in the billions if you look at the other deals for LA sports teams for TV.

Which means he makes more money, but doesn't get Super Bowls.... Which the NFL knows they'd make a lot of money with a Super Bowl in Inglewood, but they might take that loss. Either way, I think he'd come out ahead if he was free to make his own TV and merchandising deals, and I think the NFL would be more concerned with losing out on the money he'd make than he would be.

 

[tahoe]

Kroenke is not going to go rogue no matter how much the LA Rams fans want him to. He is too smart of a business man to do so. The LA situation will go the way the league wants it to go, what the league wants we don't know yet.

 

[tahoe]

Oh and don't worry about poor Stan Kroenke, he wins either way this goes.

 

[WillasDad]

Oh it'll be more, a lot more, than just a "couple million" (additionally, the by laws state he'd lose his share of the tv market contracts which is $200 million per team last year in addition to revenue share of merchandising, which i think was around $100 million per team...and the TV shares are increasing every year..this doesn't include other actions the NFL could take like withholding super bowls, etc... basically they can make life really hard, and in the end would it really be worth it?) - but the legal aspect and what could/might happen is honestly going to be way more complicated than whole the stadium fiasco. Especially with how the laws are written and there's no way to know what or how the NFL has altered their contracts prevent such a move.. And until we hear that Kroenke is going to pursue legal action, its pointless to debate. The only word we've heard as such is that kroenke would not go against the committee.

Agreed, pointless, but somehow, it hasn't really stopped too many others from engaging in such.

Just keep mind that you'd need a lot of NFL owners to stomach the risk of losing their nonprofit status just to keep someone out of LA. Sorry but friendship or no, I doubt owners care to fight to the point of potentially losing that antitrust exemption. And as for losing more, I could see the league refusing super bowls, which kind of suck, but I doubt they have the balls to try to withhold tv revenue. Not giving what is considered a privilege is one thing. Withholding money that is rightfully theirs is something entirely different. On what grounds would they do it? Bc SK wanted to move? I don't think that's how it works.

I doubt the the NFL really wants to go there. But if they do...oh well. Any tv network that televises a Ram game would likely be buying themselves a lawsuit. Also, I'm sure SK could find a nice tv deal that would probably pocket him in excess of 200 mill to show regionally. Might even start up his own sports network, which could probably lessen the pain of losing a super bowl or two.

I know we're talking crazy right now, but to me, I don't think the NFL is ready to get into a fight that could have catastrophic effect for itself and its owners just to help a couple owners who are probably more headaches than they are worth.

 

[blue4]

I don't know the man nor have I kept track of his business dealings, but I get the feeling he's not the most astute owner and frankly, I think he's waited too long. Taking 14 years to come to a solution is just as damning to the owners as it is to the cities who house their teams. The reason they haven't come to a deal may very well be a matter of Spanos' own incompetence.

The NFL, much like the NBA, has taken on a cultural change over the years. Family owned teams who've owned the team for genenrations will be going by the wayside as corporations and/or billionaires start to force their will on the league. It makes sense. These new owners invest billions of dollars to get into the NFL owners club. The last thing they care about is some trust fund kids telling them what they can and can't do. If it isn't overtly clear, Dean Spanos and Mark Davis fall into that category. SK will sue and even though internal rules in the NFL may have been created to defend against rogue owners, I'd bet they are still very much vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits. Either way, I don't see it getting that far.

At the end of the day, it comes down to it, the NFL/Goodell will side with those who can pay to play (including pay for their own stadiums) and you can guess which side each of the parties lie within.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Despite every report ever filed, every whisper, every rumor coming out of the NFL office saying that Spanos has the respect of his fellow owners and is very popular people still portray him as a giant idiot. The bumbling billionaire who's powerless to stop the raging tide that is Stan. There is really no reason at this point to believe that Spanos is incompetent. Davis, of course, but Spanos? There's not been anyone other than Rams fans that I've seen suggesting that he's incompetent. I just don't think that's a smart assumption.

 

[OldSchool]

This is what I was talking about earlier. Despite every report ever filed, every whisper, every rumor coming out of the NFL office saying that Spanos has the respect of his fellow owners and is very popular people still portray him as a giant idiot. The bumbling billionaire who's powerless to stop the raging tide that is Stan. There is really no reason at this point to believe that Spanos is incompetent. Davis, of course, but Spanos? There's not been anyone other than Rams fans that I've seen suggesting that he's incompetent. I just don't think that's a smart assumption.

Go visit some Charger sites, he's not well liked even before the Carson project.