New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

OK - Ready for this? I've been out since Thursday. I have put together another mega post. Read it if you want but keep one thing in mind. Knock off the tit for tat and forming arguments against each other rather than issues or subjects contained in a post. In one such case, I deleted several posts filled with finger pointing and was left with only this that had any merit and worthiness of posting:

Previous bickering deleted by moderator and only what needs to be said is left.
I'm done with this conversation.

But yea, lets be done with this.

That being said, on to the responses.

We all know the NFL does approve of the stadium, so who gives a crap about top tier at this point?

Haven't seen where the NFL has actually said this. I will believe it if you can provide a link. Otherwise I will just assume it is your assumption based on how you interpret the information you've read.

That's what I thought, but others were saying its not. Cincinnati apparently has one, as some others. If it was only St Louis, it might not be as big of a deal, but if its other cities, I can see the NFL handling it differently.

I never has heard that other teams have the top tier language either. Can't find it in a search either.

They followed through with the agreement. The building is not in the top tier, therefore the Rams have an option to continue on the 30 year lease or they can go year-to-year. Nothing unfulfilled at all. I still can't understand why people don't see the difference here.

Further, this part of the lease was put in because the city wanted a 30 year lease and the Rams wanted a 10. This was the compromise. Both parties have acted in good faith in that regard.

I haven't seen the bolded before. Do you have a source?

As to the lease.... What the CVC did is not breach but it very much IMO not living up to the conditions set forth by both parties. If you read through the findings of the arbitration panel, it seems pretty clear that they consider the top tier status as terms of the lease and that the wording was very laboriously arrived at in order to guarantee the level of the stadium.

You can argue that even if the CVC didn't live up to their lease, it doesn't mean the market should lose the team. But what then prevents a city from guaranteeing future grandiose additions to a stadium if the team moves there or agrees to a long term lease and then saying, "So sorry. We can't do it. Too bad you're stuck here anyway because the local market actually owns you." I just don't buy that logic. Nor do I see where a stipulation that allows you to opt out of a lease, is not failing to fulfill that lease. Still, the fans don't deserve that but the CVC is actually the ones giving them the shaft IMO.

Stan being a free agent would logically mean that it is up to the city to come up with a plan to keep him that meets or exceeds the deal he had. I could easily be wrong but I don't see the NFL trying to tell him he has to take that deal unless it determines that the Riverfront stadium is indeed in keeping with the deal in the former lease. I think it would also be extremely difficult to defend if it did happen to go to court.

No, it's in a number of cities Cincinnati, Houston and KC. The reason it's a big deal is because it will effect other cities in their negotiations so Cincinnati can tell the Bengals we won't do the renovations because the NFL won't back you.

Can you show where you found this? I'm just curious how it is worded in their leases.

So when NFL teams agree to a lease to keep the stadium in the top tier, and the cities decide that it's not worth it, you think the NFL will be happy if they make an offer that is less than their agreement? I don't.

This is what I'm thinking. I just can't see a defense of that thought pattern. The real criteria IMO will be whether the Riverfront stadium proposal, including revenue streams and financing, meets muster with the owners - of which Stan is one.

Ok, you don't like the agreement that the Rams agreed to and it was fulfilled. Noted.

A little snarky.

When I say exclusive to the EJD I'm not talking about it being exclusive to this city. What I was asking was if the top tier thing will move to the new Riverfront stadium. Again, the NFL seems on board with it, so why the fuss about top tier thing with the new stadium?

Again - where have you seen that the NFL is "on board" with it? With what I have seen, the NFL is essentially "on board" with everything going on yet not "on board" with any specific proposal or plan and has said nothing as to what projects it sees that will meet approval. I'm not saying they won't. Just that they haven't as of yet.

Hearing lots of noise on this about the league and the three owners seeking a back room deal that allows everyone to get what they want....who knows if its true or not, really doesn't matter for wanton speculation anyway!!

Here's a way for that to happen - put the Raiders and Chargers in Inglewood, have Kroenke bank roll it and allow him to apply G4 money to Inglewood to offset the expenses in St. Louis.

Yes, that would mean Kroenke "paying" for 2 stadiums, but if he were to gain access to $500M in G4 money for L.A ($250 M each for the Raiders and Chargers franchises), and another $250M in G4 Money for StL, you would be talking about enough money for him to build in St. Louis without spending any more money than he is already willing to spend in L.A. AND he would be a landlord to 2 teams, host to future Super Bowls, partner with NFL Network, and owner of the St. Louis Rams until he decides to sell (and eventually obtain the Broncos from the Bowlen family after Pat dies). Throw in a semi-permanent exemption from cross-ownership rules to sweeten the deal and I can easily see a crass opportunist like Enos Stanley Kroenke saying yes to that.

Here's a breakdown...

STL projected stadium costs - $950 M
STL projected public funds - $450 M
shortfall for NFL/Owner - $500 M

IF $750 M in G4 funds were to become available - a necessary concession from the league to help smooth out the LA situation and appease all parties; Kroenke's share of the STL stadium essentially drops to ZERO (in fact, in this scenario, he would have an extra $250M to throw at Inglewood that he currently would not be getting. That $250M would defray significant costs on the Inglewood project, and he could also seek to have some contributions ($200 M each?) from Spanos and Davis...

So, If Ingelwood is going to cost $2B to build, Kroenke could:
1) Have $250 M in G4 money from the league for playing ball in all of this
2) $200 M from Spanos
3) $200 M from Davis
4) reduce his expected lay out of $2B down to $1.35 B
5) avoid paying any relocation fees (currently the number sounds like $500M as a likely figure)

He would also never really "pay" for the St. Louis stadium because any money he did end up fronting to the project would be recouped in the eventual sale of the Rams at a value significantly higher than the current $1.3 B market rate (based on the sale of the Bills). You would be talking about allowing Kroenke to not only build in L.A., but to do so at a 35% sale price FROM WHAT HE IS ALREADY WILLING TO SPEND ANYWAY!

We're talking about a guy who to date has not said anything at all about his intentions beyond building a stadium in LA. Well, this scenario - admittedly far-fetched and 100% speculative - would solve an awful lot of problems and make the best outcome for the league a very real solution!

Chargers get LA and keep the Rams out.
Raiders get a new home.
Rams get a new home and long-term future in St. Louis.
St. Louis gets rewarded for their commitment to building.
Kroenke gets an LA Stadium and the perks of owning it.
The league can say (with some plausibility) that cities that work with it will retain their franchises, those that don't...not so much.

Fun read and thinking outside of the box. Whether I think it has any chance doesn't really matter. It was a solid post.

Exactly.

It's like when a team cuts a player because they don't want to pay what the contract calls for for but would sign him for less. Except here, that player is free to sign with another team.

St. Louis has cut the Rams from the CVC deal because they didn't want to pay the high salary on the back end of the deal. Now they want the Rams to sign for less without the option to shop around. There's a good chance that not only Kroenke will find that unacceptable, the NFL may well see it exactly the same way...

I have to guess there is some validity to this. I can't see the NFL taking kindly to the CVC bagging on their end of the lease.

No, it's actually more like the player has a clause in his contract that if he reaches a certain amount of yards he is due a bonus that the team has the option of paying or not. If they choose not to pay it the player now has the option of continuing on his deal for the full duration or optioning out every year thereafter.

In each case, the team/city takes a risk that the player/team is considered a "free agent"...but the difference is that there isn't a bylaw for the players association that states they need to try and make it work with their team before exploring other options.

Alas, the NFL does have this bylaw...but will it be followed is the real question. Not whether the fans have shown up or any of the other spin...which is exactly what it is, spin to try and make it look like St. Louis has done everything to lose the franchise when they are doing much more at a much faster rate than what most markets have done at almost any time in NFL history. And I don't assume to say it's some conspiracy against St. Louis with some malicious intent, just the unfortunate timing of what is going on in the league.

Actually - the player and the team could agree to arbitration. It may or may not be in the contracts but they could both agree - which the Rams and the CVC indeed did in 2007 as part of the extension of time allowed for top tier status.

Still I think that any deal in St Louis is going to have to include a revenue split that all sides see as being in line with what Stan was getting before. What that ends up being is anybody's guess but I can't see the city being able to play hard ball and have the NFL go along.

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.

No recent stadium or going back 10 years has had a city be on the hook for over $700 money in public money...

meanwhile Arthur blank is racking up NFL Debt (cap was $250, he's over $850 now) while covering $1.3 billion of the $1.5 billion stadium redesign

It's amazing to me how many people think Kroenke's offer is legit while ignoring one of the biggest issues with their renovation - the EJD wouldn't be in use for a year, causing a loss of income for the city and the CVC while the Rams have to find another place to play in the mean time

The $700 million was a non-bid estimate by the CVC. There was never a time when a discussion was to be held to discuss how that alleged $700 million would be financed. Therefore, no one really knows if the CVC was expected to foot the entire bill. No one really knows that the $700 million figure was accurate either. The CVC could have easily put that number on the project to "prove" how outlandish it was.

And there are a lot of things in the ATL deal that make it apples to oranges. I'm just not sure it applies here. But if you want to discuss the details of that deal as well as the Santa Clara deal, we can in a different post.

What we know is that the arbitrators ruled that Stan's proposal would keep the stadium in the top tier status and that they even said there was really no choice to be made in favor of the CVC's proposal.

Once again, I have said that they only person they have said is working in good faith is Spanos. K, are we clear on that? Now, no where, does in that one magical sentence did I say "The NFL has said Kroenke isn't working in good Faith." Now, are we clear on that yet?

No. We're not clear on that because they haven't said that. The media has insinuated it. The NFL has never said it. Prove me wrong if you'd like. But the NFL has never singled out Spanos as the only one working in good faith unless they were asked if he, in particular, was acting in good faith. They have responded in kind in regards to the other owners as well. It does no service to state that the NFL has only said that Spanos is working in good faith except to insinuate that someone else has not. Otherwise, what's the point?

Read the arbitration decision it's right in their the arbitrator could come up with their own plan. The CVC's proposal was not even close to being a valid offer. Kroenke won arbitration and you can complain about the decision but if the arbitrators found it to be unrealistic they could have changed it.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/123413755/Arbitrators-Report-Rams-CVC

The arbitrator potentially could have come up with an alternative. They admitted the lack of networking and overall expertise to put forth such a proposal. I suppose in a way you're right but they refused to do so because they felt it inappropriate. They didn't refuse to offer an alternative because they felt Stan's was the end all be all.

So you're not going to include all the green space around the stadium? The blighted area clean up? The conversion of the power and light building into more fan experience activities? That's extremely short sighted in this case.

I guess then we won't throw in Stan's NFL headquarters on the east coast. Since we are talking stadiums only.

You can compare what you want but generally speaking - at least in my opinion - that kind of site clean-up and modification is a little over and above normal site prep. I don't think it should be put toward stadium construction. But then what the heck. There are no apple to apple comparisons on ANY of these projects.

Even with the Dome - tear down has to be considered in the alleged $700 million. Not much difference between that and site prep.

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.

You don't put wording in a lease and not consider it an agreement to be fulfilled. You just don't. An opt out is a remedy - not a general provision you would normally use if everyone is upholding their end of the agreement.

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.

Not sure if it would have been cheaper or not in the long run but I do agree that the CVC did not put it out to bid and put a $700 million price tag on it as a reason to refuse it. No where has it been suggested that they sought clarification as to who would pay for what.

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.

No but this is not a simple ending of a lease. It is early termination due to the CVC failing to hold up their end. I'm not even sure how that part is debatable. I realize there is an opt out clause. But that is generally used when both sides have already reached an impasse - which they did in 2005 and agreed to defer with several stipulations - which the CVC opted to not hold up. It was anything but the end of a lease term.

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.

I would only caution that by saying this, you are lumping the posters in with those that can't see what seems clear to you. I for one don't view the owners as hapless buffoons. It doesn't really play into my arguments and I don't actually see it behind many others'.

show me anything that said the Rams would pay anything on that, ive never seen anything that said anyone but the CVC was supposed to pay all of it.

And I'm assuming you can find something substantiated that reflects your view?

Just to be clear: The original deal included top tier language. Arbitration determined it would cost the CVC $700 million to comply and the CVC refused.

To be straight - the CVC determined that Stan's plan would cost $700 million. The arbitration panel never put a figure on it or ruled on the price in any way.

Please explain how the new Riverfront stadium is a worse deal. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but it has been expressed many times that the NFL executives are indeed pleased with the new stadium the Stl Task Force is working on.

I don't think anyone really knows if the Riverfront digs will be a better or worse deal for Stan because there is a lot of minutia to be finalized. It will be interesting to see if we ever really find out if the St Louis plan is somehow rejected.

The NFL has only stated there are pleased with the progress which is significant not the actual deal that has been proposed.

Yeah - this is pretty much all I have seen.

Well if he's trying not to tip his hand for negotiations, he's trying not to show what he's got to offer. I'd say if they're looking for loopholes to get things in place, we're past the point of trying to hide what you're going to offer to entice him. If they don't divulge that and simply say "We can discuss it when he's forced to be here." I'd guess the owners would be less willing to make him stay. It doesn't help them any. They have Demoff to negotiate with, so they're fine. If they refuse to negotiate with Demoff that's their issue, that's not on Kroenke.

Not sure. The one thing I think Peacock has going for him is public perception that Stan = evil owner and Peacock/Blitz/Nixon = knight in shining armor. I would not expect Peacock to release this info until such time that he has run it by the NFL. They can't afford having it picked apart at this time and realistically, time may only be in favor of the St Louis project at this specific point in time. Past the August meeting, if the plan sdoesn't pass muster with the NFL, that could all change, Dunno.

You don't raise the value of your franchise by putting 0 dollars into the stadium.

'Scuse me? How does what Stan puts into a stadium he doesn't own and doesn't control up his team's value?

It's their stadium these were the Rams suggested upgrades and it was their right to come up with the financial plan just as the Rams suggested. They came up with the financial plan for their plan. But they refused the Rams plan before they got an estimate or came up with a financial plan. They just stuck an estimate of $700 million without getting an actual contractors estimate. Every article from the time if you check says the same thing as the first I posted. They all say that the city and state taxpayers would have to pay some of the Rams requested upgrades. None of them say the Rams expected the CVC/City/State to pay for everything.

No one really knows but I've seen it both ways and all have been assumptions.

I hear ya, but man is it worth $700 million to basically rent the team for just 10 years? For that much money, there would need to be a guarantee they would be here for much longer. Just my opinion, though.

If the CVC did that to the dome, they would have obviously been working not only in good faith but put together a project that would likely still be top tier. I would think at that point, no one is leaving. Also, if the CVC didn't just flat out refuse to do anything about it, they could have likely worked out an extension as a condition of the renovation. A lot of things could have prevented a move in 10 years but doing nothing, almost insured it was going to be a contentious fight to keep the Rams.

They switched cities, what's your point?

That has what to do with anything?

As many who argue that the G4 basically falls on Kroenke to pay back, was it an absolute that he was willing to do that? Can't go off of probables.

We established a long time ago that the owner is actually obligated to pay $50 million of the $200 million out of his pocket. That at minimum then covers $150 million of the cost. But do we know he would have done it? No. Do we know he wouldn't have? No. Do we know he wouldn't have put in the other millions the city is asking for in the new digs? No. We don't know any of the amounts the CVC would have ACTUALLY had to pay to uphold their end of the deal.

Making statements like this isn't going to get you far in this thread. You can do what you like, I'm just warning you.

Warn no one. I saw where you apologized for the unfortunate wording. I would only suggest that no one outside of a moderator use that kind of wording here.

No, the CVC did not commit to the dome being top tier. I don't get how some you people don't understand this. It was simply a clause stating that if the dome wasn't in the top tier, the Rams could opt out and go year to year. How in the world is that so hard to understand?

Then every other stipulation in the lease is the same. The top tier status was an agreed upon provision in the lease. You don't put that kind of stuff in a lease without intending to fulfill it. If you don't, you failed to live up to the agreement and the opt out can be exercised. I'm fine with not calling it breach but everyone knew what was expected with that wording. Can you really deny that?

I say it's probably a wash when you consider that the Rams are trying to break bylaws for the second time in 20 years. Based on the way the owners voted on the last move and how Superman Stan was the last catalyst for that shady move from LA I can see there being a lot of "what goes around comes around" sentiment from some in the NFL. Bottom line is if the city gets its ducks in a row and squares the financial aspect away, I'm not sure the lease on the dome even gets brought up. The media has already quit talking about it.

We don't actually know the Rams are trying to break the bylaws right now. If they move against the vote of the other owners that would be the case. Aside from that, it is all opinion as to who has done what in good faith or otherwise in all these negotiations.

Just because the media has stopped talking about it really means next to nothing. The dome agreement will likely have it's place in the decisions. To what extent? Dunno. But I find it hard to believe they would simply ignore it.

Thanks for the response, but I thought the Carson site was a former land fill. Land fills are not exactly the same thing as a Toxic Waste dump. There may certainly be nasty things in a land fill, but the quantity and severity or toxicity would be miles apart.

That place has a very sordid history and among that is illegal dumping of waste chemicals back many years ago. It also is not your standard landfill for household garbage. It is right in the middle of tank field central.

Does such a study exist or not? If it does, then I would be interested in reading it and as a scientist reviewing the findings, I can't make a judgment one way or the other with no actual data to review though ... if such a report does not exist, then the whole issue of Carson's environmental viability is not as big a deal as some might be led to believe it to be.

The problem appears to be the unknown chemicals that are still in the ground. True? Dunno. But it does seem to be a distinct possibility. Only building it will likely truly reveal the truth.

In fact, if i have it right, the contaminated 157 acres were bought for about $1 and put in a holding company so the Chargers and Raiders don't have to assume any liability for the former landfill...

That's my understanding as well.

Spanos and Davis are paired and neither have expressed interest with Stan or Inglewood. What more do you want, friend? All I know is how bad you want the Rams in LA. Everything else doesn't make as much sense as that.

As I said, don't assign motives. Final warning.

and trying to pass Carson off as if it's not a viable alternative as fact , despite the fact that the NFL treating it as it's a very realistic possibility.

May as well as talk to a wall at this point

Come on man - knock this shit off. You feel this way, stop engaging the poster and walk away.

There's a difference between "no one having votes" and saying "Kroenke has the votes to block spanos"

One is true, and one is pure conjecture. I don't know if maybe you misheard or something but it has never been reported anywhere that "Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos" - however there are countless articles of the other way. Also, Jason Cole has only reported Spanos having the votes to block him; not the opposite.

They are both conjecture. I've heard it both ways as well. Do I buy that they actually know how it will go when a vote goes down? Doubtful. The only person that has spoken and I think might have some inside knowledge on this is Fabiani as Spanos' mouth piece. And I trust what he says about as far as I could throw him. And generally, after every time I hear him speak, I'd like to see how far that is.

Yep I do, specifically the worse terms than the previous lease part, but I digress. My point was that St. Louis didn't "commit" to make the dome top tier, that was totally FALSE. Call it arguing semantics if you want, but facts are facts.

Yeah - they kinda did. The Rams could opt out if they didn't. But it is pretty clear in the 2007 negotiations and also the arbitration panel's decision that the CVC did exactly that. NO ONE signs onto a lease with the expectation that conditions are meaningless - which is what is being suggested here.

It's also the first I've heard that too. I've definitely heard it the other way around though through multiple people/sources

I actually have heard it - I just don't put much stock into the sources for either side.

and yet you make that claim. prove it.

You can choose to accept what he says or not. You can ask him to provide proof. But lighten up in how you do it. And don't act like he has to.

it has never been said That Kroenke has the votes to block spanos - and that's the only part i was mentioning

NOT that no one has the votes
NOT that Spanos has the votes (despite he claiming it, it being rumored, and/or Fabiani saying it)

Not much of a difference. If Kroenke's side has measured the resistance to Spanos moving, he has the no votes to block it. Still - I have heard it. From a reputable source? Dunno. I find most of these jokers saying they have inside knowledge are full of shit.

I never doubted that - what I have doubted are statements that indicate "Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos"

has never been said, and again that is my only point.

The only thing worse than baseless speculation is the spread of misinformation

Ease up man. I heard and read it as well. Don't know where but you can choose to believe it or not much like many don't believe much of anything that spews from Fabiani's mouth.

If I deleted every post that might contain misinformation or baseless speculation, this thread would be MUCH smaller.

The comment that I made that blue4 called me out on was my stating that Inglewood would be the LA stadium. I didn't think I'd have to put "I think" or "I feel" in front of that statement for people to know it was an opinion. I'll make sure to put it in there from now on, but jiminy christmas, people really get upset about this. BTW, great job with the modding. Probably hard enough dealing with the usual suspects here without having to deal with the random out of nowhere guy like myself creating waves with snarky posts.

Rarely hurts to add it in there. IMO is pretty easy to type. And yes - people get very upset over this topic and I can't blame them.

Find a link to an audio or article - SOMETHING. Only thing I'm finding under Roggin's show is someone on an LA rams site claiming he emailed him. No way to verify that at all

Interviews are really hard to find with search criteria. Still, even though I think everyone can choose to not believe something if the person refuses or can't provide proof, I would like it if people included back-up to their assertions. Not going to be feasible in all cases but it's always helpful - especially when asserting something new.

I understand and agree with you about providing actual direct source material. I should find the audio. It'll take some time, but I'll find it.

Always helpful

much appreciated

Not directed at you but in general, whenever someone says something or make a claim thats news to me i immediately run to google, especially if given a time frame - that often yields the best results with key words

I think many of us do. It would be nice not to have to - eh?

One thing I will point out though is the price - yes I understand regions vary from place to place, but thats $1.8 million per acre.. a stark difference from San diego's plan where they think they can get $3 million an acre for 75 acres (one of the big flaws in SD's plan in my view).

You really have to visit Carson and that area in particular then go to the Mission Valley site. Let's see.... 11 acres adjacent to a toxic waste dump (I refuse to call it just a landfill) surrounded by freeways, oil tanks and heavy industrial vs ANY acreage in SD. Unless your plan is to put a refinery or other heavy industrial use on the Carson property, it has virtually no use. My guess is that it is valued at what it is just because there are options for the owner. So the idea that the SD property is worth that much more? Completely makes sense to me.

But MAN! I'm sorry but a stadium in Carson is just a disgusting thought to me personally.

Both may think it's a lock - but the NFL isn't going to take that chance until it is a lock

Not sure anything is a lock until the NFL deems it so.

when you state as fact that something was said it is on you to prove it, otherwise i could say i have seen articles that have Stan says LA is all a bluff, but i dont feel like taking the time to show you any of them, guess what? you wouldnt believe me, and untill i see proof of what was said i and others wont believe that. if you state something as fact be prepared to back it up.

Yes you could. And I would ask you to provide proof. No matter what your excuse for not being able to provide it. I would be at minimum skeptical until you did and simply move on to the next subject or thought.

all im asking is show these multiple sources, that shouldnt be hard if there are multiple, i have never seen anyone say that Stan said he had the votes to block anything.

I have. Believe it or not. I really don't care. Nothing personal. You are free to believe it or not. I am not required to spend time making sure you do.

Or it could mean Jack crap. Lol.

I think we could just have this as a shortcut and post it about 5 times per page.

OK - I'm done for now.[/QUOTE]

 

[RamFan503]

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.

Just a small note here. It was Alex - not Dean that built the Spanos fortune. It has not grown (besides the value of all NFL teams) under Dean's watch.

Not saying he's incompetent but....

 

[iced]

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.

Somethin my old man (Professor in Business Law) has constantly reiterated to me since January is the potential of risking the loss of the Anti-trust status. They've already been warned, and that would be a huge loss for all teams. Last thing they would want. Again, another piece of the gigantic puzzle that would be the litigation world, and why I don't even want to waste my time on it until we hear something that suggests Pro Legal from Kroenke camp.

On phone with 'em now - getting a lot of info to digest, there's also things such as Tying Agreements that come into play.

MLB is the only organization is truly exempt; NBA lost an antitrust agreement on their insignia years ago.

There's also things with the anti-trust agreements that come into play such as the salary cap, etc. There's a ton of stuff in this....

He's definitely in Kroenke's corner in the regard to "it's his team, and he can do whatever he wants with it" , but there's a ton of things that can go either in way court and a lot of it is dependent on what is written into the contracts with the NFL and the franchise agreements..

Really is an extremely confusing situation that can go either way, but the NFL definitely has to be weary of Congress and the anti-trust agreements. Also if an owner sued and won (whether it was Kroenke or Spanos), the lawsuit could result in a broken franchise agreement, resulting in the NFL having to renegotiate new agreements.

But definitely the NFL in the end holds all the cards with what they can do long term, and if an owner lost..

One thing I took away from this "All this speculation is just that: speculation - really pointless to waste your time on it, unless you just enjoy it" - Thanks Dad lol, but he did sum it up nicely.

Long story short: its going to be an extremely complicated process, full of different possibilities that can go different ways resulting in different things. It should be entertaining. Again this is why I think its pointless to speculate if Kroenke truly will pursue legal action when the word is he will not. Sure it's not concrete, but until I hear otherwise I'm not going to speculate either way. And it's not something that can be figured out either unless you're a Lawyer for the NFL or an owner and are privy to what is written into the contracts and franchise agreements.

 

[RAMSinLA]

Line Deleted Whether the NFL will allow them to move IMO comes down to money and Stan has it. The NFL feels LA can handle two teams and I'm sorry to say this but the Bolt fans would riot to keep the Chargers in SD. I've read that some here believe SD is only a 2 hour drive from LA...that is only if you drive it at midnight, with traffic it's 4-6 hours.
Just saying...

 

[RamFan503]

Line Deleted Whether the NFL will allow them to move IMO comes down to money and Stan has it. The NFL feels LA can handle two teams and I'm sorry to say this but the Bolt fans would riot to keep the Chargers in SD. I've read that some here believe SD is only a 2 hour drive from LA...that is only if you drive it at midnight, with traffic it's 4-6 hours.
Just saying...

Sorry man - I'm not going to allow it after all that has been said. We can speculate, say all the evidence points to it and all that but saying you know what one of the owners or the NFL wants without them specifically saying it is still speculation on your part.

Does it appear that Stan wants to move? Sure. Could it still be a leverage play toward some other end that keeps him in St Louis? Yes it could no matter how slim you think is that chance.

 

[blue4]

Just a small note here. It was Alex - not Dean that built the Spanos fortune. It has not grown (besides the value of all NFL teams) under Dean's watch.

Not saying he's incompetent but....

But the organization surrounding the Spanos family, the lawyers, the accountants, etc are still in place. And that's even assuming Dean IS an idiot. I'm not even saying that Dean is a good businessman. I have no idea. What I'm saying is that there is every reason to assume that the Spanos family knows the NFL. The notion that he's no match for Stan seems a bit of wishful thinking. It's just like how we here in St Louis just assume the financing will get done. It just seems to me that those in favor of Inglewood seem to view other experienced billionaire owners as easily swept away against whatever Stan chooses to do. Like I was saying before, Stan's offer to help others get a stadium seems to me like he doesn't share that assumption at all. After all, we don't even know how much money Stan is prepared to go past the cost of the move. If it goes to extended legal battles, he could almost buy two NFL teams for what it will cost him to move one.

 

[RAMSinLA]

Sorry man - I'm not going to allow it after all that has been said. We can speculate, say all the evidence points to it and all that but saying you know what one of the owners or the NFL wants without them specifically saying it is still speculation on your part.

Does it appear that Stan wants to move? Sure. Could it still be a leverage play toward some other end that keeps him in St Louis? Yes it could no matter how slim you think is that chance.

+
Got it...yes it was speculative. But...leverage at the expense of losing ticket holders for 2015 and beyond? I'm just trying to be real but I totally get your point and will hold further comment until any facts are evident. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.

 

[RamFan503]

But the organization surrounding the Spanos family, the lawyers, the accountants, etc are still in place. And that's even assuming Dean IS an idiot. I'm not even saying that Dean is a good businessman. I have no idea. What I'm saying is that there is every reason to assume that the Spanos family knows the NFL. The notion that he's no match for Stan seems a bit of wishful thinking. It's just like how we here in St Louis just assume the financing will get done. It just seems to me that those in favor of Inglewood seem to view other experienced billionaire owners as easily swept away against whatever Stan chooses to do. Like I was saying before, Stan's offer to help others get a stadium seems to me like he doesn't share that assumption at all. After all, we don't even know how much money Stan is prepared to go past the cost of the move. If it goes to extended legal battles, he could almost buy two NFL teams for what it will cost him to move one.

Yeah - that's fair. I'm just saying we really have nothing to go on as to Dean's brilliance. But while Stan is building his wealth at a breakneck pace, Dean's empire, not counting the increased value of his team is not even keeping up with inflation. Kroenke was worth an estimated $400 million when he bought into the Rams. I think that is a little hard to ignore when picturing which owner would be capable of seizing the opportunity for himself and in turn the NFL and all of its owners when it comes to the LA market.

 

[RamFan503]

+
Got it...yes it was speculative. But...leverage at the expense of losing ticket holders for 2015 and beyond? I'm just trying to be real but I totally get your point and will hold comment until any facts are evident. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.

Nah - don't hold comment. Just stay away from absolutes like saying you "know" when it comes to what you think is someone's mindset. We're all commenting on what we think most of this means.

 

[iced]

+
Got it...yes it was speculative. But...leverage at the expense of losing ticket holders for 2015 and beyond? I'm just trying to be real but I totally get your point and will hold further comment until any facts are evident. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.

Ticket sales are only 20 or 30% of the overall revenue; TV contracts alone rake in 60%.

It's sad but preventing a game from being blacked out can result in more money than ticket holders (local-tv market revenues from advertisers, etc.)

 

[RAMSinLA]

Nah - don't hold comment. Just stay away from absolutes like saying you "know" when it comes to what you think is someone's mindset. We're all commenting on what we think most of this means.

You got it...I definitely see the reasoning in the rule.

 

[rams2050]

NFL won't lose their anti-trust status because they have enough senators and congresspeople in their pockets to ensure that they won't lose it.

No, I don't have a link but the fact that they have kept it for so long speaks volumes. . . The golden goose and all that.

 

[iced]

NFL won't lose their anti-trust status because they have enough senators and congresspeople in their pockets to ensure that they won't lose it.

No, I don't have a link but the fact that they have kept it for so long speaks volumes. . . The golden goose and all that.

Obviously the NFL felt differently after the black out rule situation, hence the rule being gone. The FCC's involvement/demand couldn't do anything legally speaking since the rule was written into the TV contracts, but once senators and congressmen starting threatening the NFL, the black out rule was removed within months.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Obviously the NFL felt differently after the black out rule situation, hence the rule being gone. The FCC's involvement/demand couldn't do anything legally speaking since the rule was written into the TV contracts, but once senators and congressmen starting threatening the NFL, the black out rule was removed within months.

I still don't think it's actually been said it was due to pressure from Congress that they removed that rule. If it was, why isn't Congress, who love to talk about how great they are, throwing out their shoulders patting themselves on the back. Correlation doesn't mean causation after all.

 

[RamFan503]

I still don't think it's actually been said it was due to pressure from Congress that they removed that rule. If it was, why isn't Congress, who love to talk about how great they are, throwing out their shoulders patting themselves on the back. Correlation doesn't mean causation after all.

He posted articles that certainly would indicate it was the case. Personally, I don't buy that in keeping with that, congress would honestly go after the anti-trust status. They may rattle their swords but... I really don't see that playing into any of the relocation issues myself.

 

[bluecoconuts]

He posted articles that certainly would indicate it was the case. Personally, I don't buy that in keeping with that, congress would honestly go after the anti-trust status. They may rattle their swords but... I really don't see that playing into any of the relocation issues myself.

I thought they were articles about congress saying they were looking at anti-trust status, but I guess I missed the stuff saying they ended blackouts due to congressional pressure.

Either way, I agree in that I can't imagine it would really factor in on any relocation thing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Today representatives from the Chargers and Raiders presented the Carson stadium site the citizens of Carson.

It was the same thing Inglewood did a few weeks back right?

 

[OldSchool]

It was the same thing Inglewood did a few weeks back right?

Yes it was.

View: https://twitter.com/FredNBCLA/status/613165260061552640



Looks like some others showed up there too.


View: https://twitter.com/FrankenRam/status/613143947104272384/photo/1

 

[The Ripper]

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

They're trying to make that claim in SD and it's a loser just like happened in Anaheim. Good faith has been part of the relocation guidelines since 1984.

The NFL can go back as far as they want to satisfy "good faith" and it's not just about the owner but the team. If they want they can include the missed guaranteed payments to the Rams in the first few years or the 2 extensions the team gave the CVC for the first tier review or just arbitration.

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

An owner dictating to the league. Like Lamar Hunt, Al Davis or Jerry Jones. The NFL can't stop a determined owner then or now.

What's different being hauled in front of Congress that has already happened and nothing will come from it. Fines they have been league policy since before the Rams move. The guidelines still subjective and basically the ones today are no different than the ones that have been in place since 1984. Blackout rules did not change because of Congress and the FCC.

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.

Goldman is an investment bank and that's it. It's an issue because they loan money and the amounts do matter. What if the PSL's don't come in the way the Chargers have stated or the costs go up significantly. Goldman and their investors will get paid so what will the teams have to pledge for the guarantees? That's what the NFL cares about.

 

[iced]

I still don't think it's actually been said it was due to pressure from Congress that they removed that rule. If it was, why isn't Congress, who love to talk about how great they are, throwing out their shoulders patting themselves on the back. Correlation doesn't mean causation after all.

Believe what you want - the timeline is there, and like I said the NFL didn't have to remove it, nor were they inclined to do so until pressure. It was within their legal right to keep it - FCC couldn't touch them