New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

The same exact thing can be said for LA, once the honeymoon is over and they still aren't winning the corporate support will go away there too. LA is a very fickle town and much less forgiving than St Louis is so one could argue that its much riskier than St Louis is.

I know that, the same thing can be said about every city. What LA has going for it is that by it's size there is so much more corporate support to be had, so there's more of a chance they can maintain some. Nothing is guaranteed, but a larger pool to draw from will help ease NFL worries.

Please tell me you don't call 10 years of losing football in a row a slump. Half that may be a slump, but a slump shouldn't last longer than 4 years that a rebuild takes. We've been through some crappy teams as fans including multiple rebuilds. That's not a slump.

I'm not trying to downplay how bad the Rams have been, I'm trying to say how do you maintain corporate support when when the team sucks, even if that's for a long time. Peacock has addressed that it's an issue by mentioning how he's reaching out to corporate leaders, but how can you comfort the NFL if they're concerned about corporate support. It's easy to say "Well put a better team on the field!" and we all know that is a huge part of things, but the owners understand that teams will be good and teams will be bad (and they'd much rather the Rams are bad than their team is bad) so I can't imagine that answer satisfying them.

 

[blue4]

Very good post right up to that last line. I'm beggin' yuh man. At no time have we allowed members to call people currently in the organization names or derogatory terms. I'm not going to keep reminding people of this fact no matter how good their takes may otherwise be.

I hear you, it was poorly worded. While I freely admit that is my opinion of the man, it was intended to portray the reaction of other important CEO and executives when being approached by the Rams for corporate support.

 

[iced]

Not sure what you consider transparent about what Spanos has been doing for about a decade. Even though he has spoken, he has said virtually nothing of substance. Is subterfuge considered transparent? I'm not defending Stan here. I'm just saying that Spanos has been anything but transparent and his yap dog has been an expert at deflection. As I said before, given the choices between Spanos sending Fabiani out there to crap on everything and what Stan is doing, I'd take Stan's method any day and twice on Sundays. Do I still want Stan to come out and say something publicly? Hell yes.

let's also not pretend that this latest SD stadium proposal doesn't excuse the fact that California has been notorious for not using public money stadiums. So when they finally throw a proposal together that has its own potential flaws, that doesn't excuse 10+ years of non-viable proposals.

I mean come on - Mark Davis has pledged $500 million for a stadium (more than owner would need here) and he STILL can't get a stadium.

I think Spanos has been pretty transparent and they've been honest about future problems. Spanos atleast gives the perception of wanting to negotiate, while I think out of all 3 owners Davis has tried the most to stay in cities. Kroenke has barely even engaged with St.Louis. And I really don't think with "Kroenke being hell bent for LA", which has been continuously reported non stop, that you could convince anyone non-Ram aligned that he is even trying to stay in St.Louis.

 

[blue4]

I know that, the same thing can be said about every city. What LA has going for it is that by it's size there is so much more corporate support to be had, so there's more of a chance they can maintain some. Nothing is guaranteed, but a larger pool to draw from will help ease NFL worries.



I'm not trying to downplay how bad the Rams have been, I'm trying to say how do you maintain corporate support when when the team sucks, even if that's for a long time. Peacock has addressed that it's an issue by mentioning how he's reaching out to corporate leaders, but how can you comfort the NFL if they're concerned about corporate support. It's easy to say "Well put a better team on the field!" and we all know that is a huge part of things, but the owners understand that teams will be good and teams will be bad (and they'd much rather the Rams are bad than their team is bad) so I can't imagine that answer satisfying them.

I can imagine that answer satisfying certain owners. The ones who own teams for love of the game or the ones who have inherited proud traditions. The ones who also have successful small market teams and know that a few changes in attitude towards the tickets buyers and luxury box buyers from the ownership will cure most ills along with actually putting a team on the field that can win.

We talk about how this city will he portrayed negatively, but are the Rams really immune from scrutiny too? Can there not be a decent case made by Peacock to to other owners that by retaining a head coach who loses more games every year but has experienced relocation means the Rams aren't serious about being competitive? Cannot a case be made that it's not the city's job to attract business support? It's not the public employees job to play salesman. What can Stan really say if asked what steps he took to improve his business, other than buying property in LA to either build on or threaten this city? Has he done any legwork here at all to build his business? Other than putting up a billboard or two he doesn't even advertise. I've listened first hand on speakerphone to the halfhearted spiel they give season ticket holders. The charity work is driven as much by individual players as it is Rams supported.

So, yeah I can see that some owners won't buy the b.s. Whether or not it's enough, who knows but if Carson stays in play I can see the Rams and Stan having to answer these types of questions. By proxy of course. Not in person.

 

[The Ripper]

let's also not pretend that this latest SD stadium proposal doesn't excuse the fact that California has been notorious for not using public money stadiums. So when they finally throw a proposal together that has its own potential flaws, that doesn't excuse 10+ years of non-viable proposals.

I mean come on - Mark Davis has pledged $500 million for a stadium (more than owner would need here) and he STILL can't get a stadium.

I think Spanos has been pretty transparent and they've been honest about future problems. Spanos atleast gives the perception of wanting to negotiate, while I think out of all 3 owners Davis has tried the most to stay in cities. Kroenke has barely even engaged with St.Louis. And I really don't think with "Kroenke being hell bent for LA", which has been continuously reported non stop, that you could convince anyone non-Ram aligned that he is even trying to stay in St.Louis.

We don't know if he has or hasn't been transparent. Fabiani controls all communication with the public so know one knows what is real and what is spin. Hard to judge Spanos but Fabiani's way of doing business is well documented The Clinton's, Gore and Lance Armstrong.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement," Bill Clinton

 

[drasconis]

The courts have already ruled that subjective guidelines can't be used prevent a move. The Senate Judiciary said the same thing. The relocation rules are not part of the bylaws so they can be changed at anytime. The other factors, which good faith and exhaust are all options, are just things to be considered. The NFL won't be enforcing the lease but the lease was amended in 2007 and the NFL knew what the process was so if they had in issue it would have been changed. It's important because there are other similar provisions in other team leases so if the NFL doesn't apply it here what will happen in Houston or Cincinnati when the time comes.

I agree with that it won't be the only consideration. It will come down to the financials and the plan for Inglewood compared with the entire financial plan for St Louis.

Which ruling is that? The rulings I am familier with the courts didn't say they couldn't be used, but that the NFL had applied them in such a way as to not overcome the burden of the AT laws? The relocation rules ARE part of the bylaws (As addendum), but the bylaws can be changed at anytime so....
Where did the Seante say that...not that it matters...unless congress passed a law that opinion matters little to nothing in the court?

Your still not being clear on what is in the lease that would set a bad precedent? The NFL doesn't want to limit team movement by putting such limitations in the lease, and they certainly do not want the lease to guide wether a move is allowed by the league...they want the league to set such rules (and thus be able to change them as they see fit), thus they are only ones that can litigate it. Not clear on what you think the NFL would be enforcing/not enforcing with the lease to set some precedent...

Not sure the financials would matter at all in a court case (which is what I thought we were discussing) they will matter in the NFL decision of who moves/doesn't and how hard they fight if it does go to court...

 

[The Ripper]

Which ruling is that? The rulings I am familier with the courts didn't say they couldn't be used, but that the NFL had applied them in such a way as to not overcome the burden of the AT laws? The relocation rules ARE part of the bylaws (As addendum), but the bylaws can be changed at anytime so....
Where did the Seante say that...not that it matters...unless congress passed a law that opinion matters little to nothing in the court?

Your still not being clear on what is in the lease that would set a bad precedent? The NFL doesn't want to limit team movement by putting such limitations in the lease, and they certainly do not want the lease to guide wether a move is allowed by the league...they want the league to set such rules (and thus be able to change them as they see fit), thus they are only ones that can litigate it. Not clear on what you think the NFL would be enforcing/not enforcing with the lease to set some precedent...

Not sure the financials would matter at all in a court case (which is what I thought we were discussing) they will matter in the NFL decision of who moves/doesn't and how hard they fight if it does go to court...

The relocation rules are not in the bylaws and never have been. No addendum. 4.3 is the only bylaw that addresses relocation and the only requirement is a vote of 3/4 of the owners. The relocation guidelines come from 8.5 which is the commissioners responsibilities. It allows him from time to time set league policy and interrupt the bylaws.

The lease sets a bad precedent because Houston and Cincinnati both have similar clauses and if it is not enforced in St Louis then the other cities would use that to say that they don't have to comply.

Financials are the only thing that matters. How it relates to other teams operations and the revenues to the league

 

[ChrisW]

I'm not trying to downplay how bad the Rams have been, I'm trying to say how do you maintain corporate support when when the team sucks, even if that's for a long time. Peacock has addressed that it's an issue by mentioning how he's reaching out to corporate leaders, but how can you comfort the NFL if they're concerned about corporate support. It's easy to say "Well put a better team on the field!" and we all know that is a huge part of things, but the owners understand that teams will be good and teams will be bad (and they'd much rather the Rams are bad than their team is bad) so I can't imagine that answer satisfying them.

I can't imagine that they expect to sell out the suites with that kind of shit record over the lifetime the team has been here.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I can imagine that answer satisfying certain owners. The ones who own teams for love of the game or the ones who have inherited proud traditions. The ones who also have successful small market teams and know that a few changes in attitude towards the tickets buyers and luxury box buyers from the ownership will cure most ills along with actually putting a team on the field that can win.

We talk about how this city will he portrayed negatively, but are the Rams really immune from scrutiny too? Can there not be a decent case made by Peacock to to other owners that by retaining a head coach who loses more games every year but has experienced relocation means the Rams aren't serious about being competitive? Cannot a case be made that it's not the city's job to attract business support? It's not the public employees job to play salesman. What can Stan really say if asked what steps he took to improve his business, other than buying property in LA to either build on or threaten this city? Has he done any legwork here at all to build his business? Other than putting up a billboard or two he doesn't even advertise. I've listened first hand on speakerphone to the halfhearted spiel they give season ticket holders. The charity work is driven as much by individual players as it is Rams supported.

So, yeah I can see that some owners won't buy the b.s. Whether or not it's enough, who knows but if Carson stays in play I can see the Rams and Stan having to answer these types of questions. By proxy of course. Not in person.

I think Stan can point to the team before he took over and the team after he took over as to what he's done to improve his business. The Rams may not be over the hump yet, but they're a lot closer now than they were before he became the majority owner. Even with him seemingly having one foot out the door.

Regardless though, I think that the NFL is going to look at market studies and various other reasons before just marking down that it has to do with poor play and that being the cure to everything. Of course Kroenke could do more to engage the support, but if there was a lack of support before he came over, or before his LA intentions were known, then what do they say? When Kroenke is making his pitch you can bet he's going to touch on all potential points, and if the numbers support him, as they apparently do, then what? I think the NFL is going too ask the city what their plan is, because if they ask Kroenke and he just shrugs, then that doesn't really help St Louis any.

This isn't something that's unique to St. Louis either, they've asked LA these questions and as far as I can tell they still ask. My father is at DreamWorks and he says that they've gotten several inquiries about their level of support for a potential team over the past few months.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I can't imagine that they expect to sell out the suites with that kind of crap record over the lifetime the team has been here.

I can't imagine that the NFL would be happy with that answer, but okay.

 

[blue4]

The relocation rules are not in the bylaws and never have been. No addendum. 4.3 is the only bylaw that addresses relocation and the only requirement is a vote of 3/4 of the owners. The relocation guidelines come from 8.5 which is the commissioners responsibilities. It allows him from time to time set league policy and interrupt the bylaws.

The lease sets a bad precedent because Houston and Cincinnati both have similar clauses and if it is not enforced in St Louis then the other cities would use that to say that they don't have to comply.

Financials are the only thing that matters. How it relates to other teams operations and the revenues to the league

Everything about this mess sets a bad precedent. Cherry picking one or another is an oversimplification, as is how other cities views that requirement. Considering we are on the brink of losing a team, I doubt many will view us as the banner wavers for how to deal with top tier issues.

As for the setting aside of bylaws, it says he can. Not that he must. I'm as pessimistic as the next, but one thing does remain true. Set aside the bylaws and you lose the 21st market. You lose it short term, you lose it long term. Before Carson, the 2nd for the 21st seemed a good trade. But there is now an option on the table that allows the NFL to keep all its markets, provided financing comes through for all involved. They CAN have the 2nd and the 21st and all in between. I can't see how that wouldn't carry some weight. We've all agreed that greed rules the NFL, right? Give up a little money for a lot of money, or keep all the money. To me the longer Carson stays on the table the worse it is for Stan.

 

[The Ripper]

I can't imagine that they expect to sell out the suites with that kind of crap record over the lifetime the team has been here.

I can't imagine that the NFL would be happy with that answer, but okay.

No, the NFL is not okay with that answer but it's not always possible to sell out so the communities overcome the problem with guarantees for sales of suites and tickets.

 

[blue4]

think Stan can point to the team before he took over and the team after he took over as to what he's done to improve his business. The Rams may not be over the hump yet, but they're a lot closer now than they were before he became the majority owner. Even with him seemingly having one foot out the door.

He can? 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and an alienation of his money supply? You and I have a very different view of improving a business.

 

[The Ripper]

Everything about this mess sets a bad precedent. Cherry picking one or another is an oversimplification, as is how other cities views that requirement. Considering we are on the brink of losing a team, I doubt many will view us as the banner wavers for how to deal with top tier issues.

As for the setting aside of bylaws, it says he can. Not that he must. I'm as pessimistic as the next, but one thing does remain true. Set aside the bylaws and you lose the 21st market. You lose it short term, you lose it long term. Before Carson, the 2nd for the 21st seemed a good trade. But there is now an option on the table that allows the NFL to keep all its markets, provided financing comes through for all involved. They CAN have the 2nd and the 21st and all in between. I can't see how that wouldn't carry some weight. We've all agreed that greed rules the NFL, right? Give up a little money for a lot of money, or keep all the money. To me the longer Carson stays on the table the worse it is for Stan.

Some very good points. The league may not want to lose St Louis but their are options available to the NFL if they want to be in the market. The NFL says expansion is not on the table now but it could be for the time the Riverfront Stadium opens

 

[ChrisW]

I can't imagine that the NFL would be happy with that answer, but okay.

With any business you expect your sales to be commensurate with your product. Bad product, bad sales. It's business 101.

 

[drasconis]

The relocation rules are not in the bylaws and never have been. No addendum. 4.3 is the only bylaw that addresses relocation and the only requirement is a vote of 3/4 of the owners. The relocation guidelines come from 8.5 which is the commissioners responsibilities. It allows him from time to time set league policy and interrupt the bylaws.

The lease sets a bad precedent because Houston and Cincinnati both have similar clauses and if it is not enforced in St Louis then the other cities would use that to say that they don't have to comply.

Financials are the only thing that matters. How it relates to other teams operations and the revenues to the league

Good catch, I would have sworn I saw them in there, your right they just generally fall under the comminsioner....the 3/4 is the only part in the bylaws.

I still do not get what part of the lease you think isn't being enforced and setting bad precedent? What is it about the lease that matters? If the Rams were forced to stay it wouldn't be over the lease it would be over their level of negotiation with the city/state...being stuck in the dome would just be result of not following through on that...it wouldn't be because the lease was met. The precedent the league would be setting is that there is a greater burden on ownership to be more proactive towards resolution in their current communities and that teams themselves shouldn't just wait until the lease expires and say "oh well to late". I realize that the counter argument is it takes burden off the local community and puts it on the team (which I agree the league may not really want), but that may be more of the league wanting teams to play the PR game better and focusing more on public perception to avoid situations like the old Browns and Indy moves.

 

[The Ripper]

With any business you expect your sales to be commensurate with your product. Bad product, bad sales. It's business 101.

Yes, but it's the NFL. The NFL will overlook attendance that has been consistently in the bottom tier if the revenues are there but having both could be an issue. The question for the NFL is whether a local committed owner could increase revenues even with a team that performs poorly.

 

[RAMbler]

bluecoconuts: "I think Stan can point to the team before he took over and the team after he took over as to what he's done to improve his business. The Rams may not be over the hump yet, but they're a lot closer now than they were before he became the majority owner. Even with him seemingly having one foot out the door."

Exactly! Many seem to forget just how terribly this team was run by the previous regime. Everything from top to bottom seemed to be rotten. It was so bad, that it is taking extra time to turn things around. Does anyone even recall how many of our so called "starters" were completely out of football shortly after Stan took the reigns. 'Completely out of football'! That means nobody else wanted them. Stan was not the 'shot caller' before she died, and now he is relatively new at it. I will give him time, because I knew it would take extra time for ANY new owner to turn that mess around.

Also, just like that owner before Stan...., I couldn't care less if he makes a bunch of public statements or not. None. If he prefers to use a mouthpiece..., more power to him. I just don't really care about that. I do care about the product on the field. And I do see things changing for the better.

 

[bluecoconuts]

He can? 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and an alienation of his money supply? You and I have a very different view of improving a business.

Compared to 2-14, 1-15, etc? I'd say that's an improvement.

 

[The Ripper]

Good catch, I would have sworn I saw them in there, your right they just generally fall under the comminsioner....the 3/4 is the only part in the bylaws.

I still do not get what part of the lease you think isn't being enforced and setting bad precedent? What is it about the lease that matters? If the Rams were forced to stay it wouldn't be over the lease it would be over their level of negotiation with the city/state...being stuck in the dome would just be result of not following through on that...it wouldn't be because the lease was met. The precedent the league would be setting is that there is a greater burden on ownership to be more proactive towards resolution in their current communities and that teams themselves shouldn't just wait until the lease expires and say "oh well to late". I realize that the counter argument is it takes burden off the local community and puts it on the team (which I agree the league may not really want), but that may be more of the league wanting teams to play the PR game better and focusing more on public perception to avoid situations like the old Browns and Indy moves.

The part that causes an issue is that CVC is actually in a better position by getting out of the clause because they're not responsible for the cost to keep the top tier standard. The Rams are in a worse position because if the NFL forces them to stay their only option is to stay in the Dome which no one wants or contribute to a stadium they might or might not want and will force them to cover a majority of the cost for a stadium that they won't control. The Rams will be a tenant. The wording was in there for there to be a cost to the CVC if they didn't comply.