New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Rmfnlt]

I think it's more talking about the Chinese/Asian base that's already in Los Angeles. A lot of rich Asian families (especially Chinese) send their children to UCLA to study before returning home. Often they move three generations out there (student, parents, grandparents) while they're in school with them. It's actually a little weird, because they'll be eating lunch and quizzing their child. Anyway, getting them as fans, allows the brand name to spread much easier, as the hope is they'll go back home and influence their friends and family as well. Yes it's doable in every city, it's easier in LA because the rotation of families is already pretty well established and there's a lot more fruit to be picked so to speak.

So are we talking about finding an Asian football player to play for the L.A. Rams?

 

[Rmfnlt]

It's funny that Fabriani is accepted as the voice for the Chargers in their stadium issues yet Demhoff isn't accepted in the same position for the Rams. I guess the Kroenke hate is too strong. Demhoff at the last meeting presented both the St Louis and Inglewood plans/updates. He's long been Kroenke's voice in all matters Rams.

Are we comparing Kroenke's transparency to Spanos?

 

[Rmfnlt]

Let's keep the attitude out of it before daddy comes home. Tony makes a good point. Almost every owner speaks to the media. I would love to have Jerry Jones over Kroenke at this point. At least he likes the fans.

I understand what you're trying to say but it doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Trust me on this... you do NOT want JJ as an owner. :eek:

If Kroenke is on one end of the spectrum, JJ is on the other.

But, to your point, there are plenty of owners who - when they sense the fan base is in need of important information - take it upon THEMSELVES to inform THEIR fan base. Not throw their designated mouthpiece out there.

IMHO, this is such an occasion... let me put it this way:

Does anyone think there is one owner out there who, after making such impactful actions (to their fans), would not decide to get in front of the fan base? Or at least take an interview or two?

 

[OldSchool]

NFL’s next Los Angeles meeting limited to owners only

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...t-los-angeles-meeting-limited-to-owners-only/

We knew NFL owners were meeting in Chicago on Aug. 11 to discuss the future of the Los Angeles situation, that fact alone makes it noteworthy.

But when they call the roll, it’s going to be even more clear they’re there to do business.

According to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, this meeting will be a rare one-per-club meeting, meaning the 32 owners will be alone in a room.

The sense is that without team presidents and other officials who are around for the annual spring meetings in the room, the owners will more comfortable to push through difficult issues with fewer people clattering about.

With only principal owners in the room (plus one family member each), it creates an opportunity for real movement on the issue in a behind-the-scenes-while-being-the-scene way.

At that meeting, they’re not expected to make a final decision on who goes to L.A. and where they play. But they will hear presentations from the Inglewood and Carson stadium sites, which are being forwarded by the Rams and the Chargers/Raiders jointly, respectively.

Having three teams and two stadium possibilities mean that deals going to be too tough to strike in any one day. But they are expected to refine and announce a new schedule for both accepting relocation applications and making the final decisions for the site of the team(s) involved.

It could also stem the tide of leaks (if fewer leaks is what they want), as fewer people in the room mean fewer people to spread the information shared within.

 

[OldSchool]

Are we comparing Kroenke's transparency to Spanos?

You mean there's something about either plan that you don't know? Something that hasn't been released announced or covered by the media? Both owners have a front man doing all the talking for them because that's the smart business thing to do.

 

[drasconis]

The NFL makes certain exceptions to teams as compromises. They give additional rights and take them away too.

If it went to court it can be said that the approval for the lease which the NFL did, gives the Rams the option to relocate. The leases are scrutinized heavily and the NFL will change them if it's not in their interest. The precedent set would be that cities don't need to honor their leases because the NFL won't support the teams. The NFL can't selectively honor provisions in leases that they approved. The NFL knew prior to arbitration that if the Rams won and the city didn't meet the deadline the the Rams had the right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone plus the right to relocate. The relocation guidelines are only league policy and can be changed at anytime by the commissioner, they fall under his duties from 8.5 where as the lease is a legal contract.

NFL has changed agreements and rewrote leases. Al Davis challenged the NFL on this in regards to Hollywood Park and he lost.

Not really sure what you are discussing here.....No one is saying anything about cities not honoring leases.....the only question is if the lease by itself meets the NFL guideline requirements for reasonable effort in home market. I guess a case can be made for it...but it isn't a great one and it is clearly not directly stated as such. At best it would likely be considered a factor....maybe. But no court is going to say that NFL approval of the lease means that the NFL made the lease the one and only determination for the good faith efforts.

 

[Rmfnlt]

When did the St Louis metro area start losing businesses? We've got plenty. The city may be Idk, but drive 5 minutes and you'll find plenty. Drive 15 min down I64 to the west county and you'll find nothing but construction on new stores and businesses. The reason the Rams have little corporate support is because they lose games, they lose them in sloppy undisciplined ways, and the owner treats pretty much everyone like an unimportant subordinate. To say it's because we don't have enough business is a smear job. It's a narrative apparently being bought into by some. I don't know if it fits people's preconceived notions of how a Midwest city is, or it makes people feel better about their chances of getting our team, but if the lack of businesses narrative had any basis in fact the Blues and the Cardinals would also have problems. Shockingly, they do not. Want monetary support from business? Try having a winning season once every decade or so. Try working the room. Just saying, "I'm Stan Kroenke, buy boxes for my team but don't speak to me or talk to me directly" doesn't work. Surprisingly, being an deleted who owns the losingest team in this century doesn't do much for other executives.

Man, that was quite a strong post!
(applauds)

 

[Goose]

My thoughts exactly. Businesses are leaving, corporate money drying up, that's one of the reasons the Rams may leave, which will, in all likelihood, make the problem worse...

Mr. Motes I think it is a stretch to say that the corporate money is drying up in STL. I do know that as part of this process Peacock has been reaching out to the business community to ensure corporate sponsorship for the new stadium.

 

[The Ripper]

Not really sure what you are discussing here.....No one is saying anything about cities not honoring leases.....the only question is if the lease by itself meets the NFL guideline requirements for reasonable effort in home market. I guess a case can be made for it...but it isn't a great one and it is clearly not directly stated as such. At best it would likely be considered a factor....maybe. But no court is going to say that NFL approval of the lease means that the NFL made the lease the one and only determination for the good faith efforts.

Good faith is a subjective not objective so a court can't say whether it has been met or not. The entire history of the Rams in St Louis will be used not just arbitration. That includes missed guaranteed payments, the 2005 top tier review process that concluded in 2007 with the amended lease and the entire arbitration process up through today.

In your last post you brought up precedent for changing rules which occurs all the time in the NFL. The relocation guidelines were changed this year in not allowing teams to apply for relocation. The precedent set would be in enforcing leases or not.

 

[Rmfnlt]

You mean there's something about either plan that you don't know? Something that hasn't been released announced or covered by the media? Both owners have a front man doing all the talking for them because that's the smart business thing to do.

No... but, if we're comparing transparency between Kroenke and Spanos (which - correct me if I'm wrong -- was the topic at that moment), it's apples and oranges.

 

[Legatron4]

Trust me on this... you do NOT want JJ as an owner. :eek:

If Kroenke is on one end of the spectrum, JJ is on the other.

But, to your point, there are plenty of owners who - when they sense the fan base is in need of important information - take it upon THEMSELVES to inform THEIR fan base. Not throw their designated mouthpiece out there.

IMHO, this is such an occasion... let me put it this way:

Does anyone think there is one owner out there who, after making such impactful actions (to their fans), would not decide to get in front of the fan base? Or at least take an interview or two?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any other owner would have said SOMETHING at this point. Both Spanos and Davis have spoke. And yeah, I was probably over exaggerating with wanting Jerrah as an owner. But like I said, at least he makes a fuckin effort. All Kroenke cares about is money. Personally I don't think he's fit to be an NFL owner. Because he doesn't seem to care very much about football. And that bugs the shit out of me.

 

[Rmfnlt]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any other owner would have said SOMETHING at this point. Both Spanos and Davis have spoke. And yeah, I was probably over exaggerating with wanting Jerrah as an owner. But like I said, at least he makes a freakin effort. All Kroenke cares about is money. Personally I don't think he's fit to be an NFL owner. Because he doesn't seem to care very much about football. And that bugs the crap out of me.

Well, I'm not overly emotional about his silence... but it seems clear to me that it is not helping the situation at all.

And, it's not consistent with what most other owners would do/have done.

Does that make him a monster? No.

But it surely doesn't make him a good owner in my eyes.

He'd be a good owner if he:
* Put a winning team on the field consistently
* Communicated at least a little

Really... I could give a rats ass how much wealth he's accumulating... it means nothing to me (unless he's tanking and the team is suffering as a result).

All this wealth? Haven't seen it translate to the field yet.

 

[Legatron4]

Well, I'm not overly emotional about his silence... but it seems clear to me that it is not helping the situation at all.

And, it's not consistent with what most other owners would do/have done.

Does that make him a monster? No.

But it surely doesn't make him a good owner in my eyes.

He'd be a good owner is he:
* Put a winning team on the field consistently
* Communicated at least a little

Really... I could give a rats ass how much wealth he's accumulating... it means nothing to me (unless he's tanking and the team is suffering as a result).

All this wealth? Haven't seen it translate to the field yet.

And I think that's one of my biggest problems too. Some people actually believe moving to LA will give them more success on the football field. If Kroenke could make more money in another 20 years in a different city, you better believe he would try to move again.

 

[The Ripper]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any other owner would have said SOMETHING at this point. Both Spanos and Davis have spoke. And yeah, I was probably over exaggerating with wanting Jerrah as an owner. But like I said, at least he makes a freakin effort. All Kroenke cares about is money. Personally I don't think he's fit to be an NFL owner. Because he doesn't seem to care very much about football. And that bugs the crap out of me.

Well, I'm not overly emotional about his silence... but it seems clear to me that it is not helping the situation at all.

And, it's not consistent with what most other owners would do/have done.

Does that make him a monster? No.

But it surely doesn't make him a good owner in my eyes.

He'd be a good owner if he:
* Put a winning team on the field consistently
* Communicated at least a little

Really... I could give a rats ass how much wealth he's accumulating... it means nothing to me (unless he's tanking and the team is suffering as a result).

All this wealth? Haven't seen it translate to the field yet.

I think for the most part owners are judged on the teams performance and that changes when the teams start winning but there are a few owners that fans generally despise no matter what. Legatron4 may have been a little strong but his point may have some validity. Perception is reality.

 

[tahoe]

DELETED , that St Louis is a crap hole with no corporations and nothing positive going for it as a city... St Louis isn't LA but its not De Moines either. I hate how this stadium situation has divided the Rams fan base into LA and St Louis and I cant wait until they announce that the Rams are staying and we can get past all of this nonsense.

 

[Legatron4]

I think for the most part owners are judged on the teams performance and that changes when the teams start winning but there are a few owners that fans generally despise no matter what. Legatron4 may have been a little strong but his point may have some validity. Perception is reality.

Sorry, this is why I stay out of this topic. I just feel too strongly about it.

 

[drasconis]

Good faith is a subjective not objective so a court can't say whether it has been met or not. The entire history of the Rams in St Louis will be used not just arbitration. That includes missed guaranteed payments, the 2005 top tier review process that concluded in 2007 with the amended lease and the entire arbitration process up through today.

In your last post you brought up precedent for changing rules which occurs all the time in the NFL. The relocation guidelines were changed this year in not allowing teams to apply for relocation. The precedent set would be in enforcing leases or not.

Your still not making sense or at least your argument isn't clear to me.

A court can say whether good faith is met - yes it is subjective....but a court CAN rule on it...courts rule on subjective terms in contracts all the time.

Yes, the entire Rams history in STL will be part of the good faith discussion -"if" the NFL cares. If the Rams are allowed to move lets be honest it will be pretty rubber stamp and be very limited in the reasoning given they will say something like "the Rams made all reasonable efforts but in the end no satisfactory solution could be found - and STL will not be happy but not be able to do anything.

The only way issues of the lease get brought up, besides on sites like this, is if the Rams are blocked in a move and it goes to court and for some reason they fight oveer the good faith effort requirement of the NFL bylaws as opposed to the much more likely AT arguments. IF they did go that way though, while I am sure the lease would be raised as a factor, I can promise you that Kroenkes lawyers aren't going to say the lease said we could move anywhere and the NFL approved the lease so the lease met their good faith requirement all by itself. Once again they will bring up the lease, but that isn't going to be the end all be all of the arguement.

Not really seeing what you are getting at with the precedent on enforcing leases...the CVC will have no action here and no way of stopping the Rams leaving as far as I can tell...so no action will go to court regarding the breaking of the lease...and the NFL wouldn't be trying to enforce a lease (At least not directly it might be an end result...odd as that is).

 

[OldSchool]

DELETED that St Louis is a crap hole with no corporations and nothing positive going for it as a city... St Louis isn't LA but its not De Moines either. I hate how this stadium situation has divided the Rams fan base into LA and St Louis and I cant wait until they announce that the Rams are staying and we can get past all of this nonsense.

Not calling anybody or any city crap but it was released that the suites at EJD were only 2/3 sold last year. And they have said the market survey showed very little corporate support. It's been said many times that suite sales and local business sponsorship is more important to pro teams than ticket sales. It's a problem for the Rams in St. Louis.

 

[blue4]

DELETED , that St Louis is a crap hole with no corporations and nothing positive going for it as a city... St Louis isn't LA but its not De Moines either. I hate how this stadium situation has divided the Rams fan base into LA and St Louis and I cant wait until they announce that the Rams are staying and we can get past all of this nonsense.

It does seem like the polite shots at St Louis are increasing. You know, how we might be suitable for an expansion team when we lose the real team, no businesses here, stocked with slimy politicians subverting the mostly dead silent voters, irresponsible for not having a backup stadium plan in 2005, and so on. It seems pot and kettle to me, seeing as how the Rams have used most of the same excuses 20 years ago leaving the town they are trying to come back to.

They left LA 20 years ago for greed, and they are returning from ST Louis for the same reason. That's it, and that's all.

 

[tahoe]

Not calling anybody or any city crap but it was released that the suites at EJD were only 2/3 sold last year. And they have said the market survey showed very little corporate support. It's been said many times that suite sales and local business sponsorship is more important to pro teams than ticket sales. It's a problem for the Rams in St. Louis.

The main reason for this is the lack of winning for the last 10 years. I think St. Louis fans and corporations should be commended for supporting this team as much as they have with the terrible product we have had to watch. Start winning and the corporate support will be there.