New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

To me, the whole going rogue thing is moot point, especially if the Chargers and Raiders are given the go ahead to move. Kroenke isn't going to want this franchise to be the 3rd one in the market. What's Kroenke gonna do, take the NFL to court to prevent the Chargers and Raiders from moving so he can? Nope, ain't gonna happen. I also want to see how this cross ownership thing works out. If that isn't even close to being resolved by the time this decision is made, how can SK just go rogue with that hanging over his head?

 

[beej]

If all three teams apply the weakest team will lose regardless of the stadium situation. All 3 have issues. Kroenke with cross ownership which may be the weakest issue since there are other conflicts the NFL must overcome to enforce it. The Chargers and Raiders both need an exception for a G-4 loan. The Raiders have another major issue Levi. Having a viable stadium and not having the money makes the Raiders situation challenging.

possibly...but you might have it backwards. The NFL has a tendency to help the weakest teams become stronger. Put a weaker team in LA and they instantly become stronger, right? I think that I've heard that mentioned several times here.

I can't imagine that they would want to make a weak team weaker, by forcing them to play in Levi stadium. For one thing, we already established that in the history of the NFL they've never made a team play where they didn't want to play. Even though they kind of did with the Seahawks, (but not really, depending on where you live)

 

[The Ripper]

To me, the whole going rogue thing is moot point, especially if the Chargers and Raiders are given the go ahead to move. Kroenke isn't going to want this franchise to be the 3rd one in the market. What's Kroenke gonna do, take the NFL to court to prevent the Chargers and Raiders from moving so he can? Nope, ain't gonna happen. I also want to see how this cross ownership thing works out. If that isn't even close to being resolved by the time this decision is made, how can SK just go rogue with that hanging over his head?

Cross ownership is a non issue. The original rules were thrown out in court entirely. The case involved soccer but the ruling didn't specify soccer. The NFL kept the original rules in effect for 17 years even though they weren't enforceable. The modified rules are just enforceable because there's no defense for allowing cross ownership in another market for soccer but prevent the other sports. MLS structure is different but the the NFL owner controls the team and control is just as important as owning the other team.

 

[beej]

Davis and Spanos aren't billionaires so they don't have the money to challenge the NFL. They both need assistance to relocate and build a stadium.

wait...so the nfl CAN force a team to play where the NFL wants them too. I thought we just established that the NFL never has and never will force a team to stay where they don't want to stay.

 

[blue4]

They can't stop Stan from physically moving. They can "stop" him from moving if they want to. We're confusing the ability to stop him with the desire to stop him. No matter what court case Stan wins or how many stadiums he builds, there is no law of the land that says the NFL has to pay him TV money or anything else if he violates the organization rules. There is no law that can force them to schedule games for the Rams to play, both effectively destroying Stan's business. They can do this. They won't, because they don't want that. Not because they can't.

 

[The Ripper]

possibly...but you might have it backwards. The NFL has a tendency to help the weakest teams become stronger. Put a weaker team in LA and they instantly become stronger, right? I think that I've heard that mentioned several times here.

I can't imagine that they would want to make a weak team weaker, by forcing them to play in Levi stadium. For one thing, we already established that in the history of the NFL they've never made a team play where they didn't want to play. Even though they kind of did with the Seahawks, (but not really, depending on where you live)

Going to LA won't make a weak team strong. The Chargers and the Raiders both will have substantial debt service that will take away from their earnings. The NFL wants LA to be a success and they need a team that has the resources to "get it right in LA".

The NFL insiders prior to this year said that the NFL didn't want the Raiders in LA because they wanted Mark Davis out of the league. The other factor is that the NFL didn't want 2 stadiums in the Bay Area or in any other market and they wanted the Raiders to play in Levi.

 

[The Ripper]

wait...so the nfl CAN force a team to play where the NFL wants them too. I thought we just established that the NFL never has and never will force a team to stay where they don't want to stay.

They need assistance from the NFL to relocate since they can't do it on their own. The other factor if the NFL says no they won't have the financing from Goldman. For an owner to go against the league they need a partner. The Browns(Ravens) had Baltimore, Colts had Indy and AL Davis had the Memorial Coliseum. The Raiders and Chargers just have each other if they challenged the league.

 

[beej]

The NFL insiders prior to this year said that the NFL didn't want the Raiders in LA because they wanted Mark Davis out of the league. The other factor is that the NFL didn't want 2 stadiums in the Bay Area or in any other market and they wanted the Raiders to play in Levi.

good dialogue here.

ok so my first question is, "who are these NFL insiders?" and are we sure about this or just speculation?

secondly, who cares what the NFL wants they are historically powerless to stop Davis from doing whatever he wants right?

 

[The Ripper]

good dialogue here.

ok so my first question is, "who are these NFL insiders?" and are we sure about this or just speculation?

secondly, who cares what the NFL wants they are historically powerless to stop Davis from doing whatever he wants right?

Agreed.

The same insiders that are giving us the information today. Cole, LaCanfora, Breer and a few others. Like a lot of the information from the "Insiders" there's some truth to what they say. The NFL wanted the Raiders in Levi and multiple NFL officials have said that publicly including Goodell.

The problem for the Raiders at least in LA is that they don't have a place to play so they need to build a stadium and they just don't have the resources to do it. Al had a place to play and a willing partner to sue the league. Marks in a tough spot because he doesn't have that option in LA but he may in other places, San Antonio for one. It all comes down to money. If Davis could build a stadium on his own then he probably could do what he wants. AEG might have made a good partner because Davis needs help running the team and it could have worked even with the potential mess with the limited partners. The problem it's probably to late in the process now for AEG.

 

[MrMotes]

Again though - it's not really a good analogy. As a restaurant owner, I know that there will be other restaurants in my market to take up the hole left by my leaving and there is no way that the infrastructure, tourism, and local businesses would have been created by and for my existence in the market.

I'm not saying that the Rams organization shouldn't be allowed to leave but that it is not really comparable to really any other business that does not individually affect the market like a billion dollar destination or employer being helped by the subsidization from millions of tax dollars.

No analogy is perfect but to take this one a little further, maybe it's the only Greek restaurant in town. And it's not like St. Louis doesn't have other options for your sports/entertainment dollar.

But the real difference is the emotional attachment we make to our teams. That's different than pretty much anything else. And that's why it's easy to forget that it's really, for the most part, just a business...

 

[beej]

when I hear the term "NFL insiders" I immediately get skeptical. And maybe that's on me. I have a skeptical nature. but it just seems to me that if the NFL wanted the raiders to play in LEVI they would have got involved and set that stadium up for 2 teams. It seems like most people agree that it is not setup for 2 teams currently. So the Raiders are going somewhere.

If they move to LA they will instantly be worth 2-3x what they are worth now according to people from LA who claim to know. (I'm skeptical of that too, but I'm just trying to go by the logic that a lot of Californians are using to bolster their view that the Rams are moving to LA and no one can stop it.)

if the team is worth 2-3x as much right off the bat. That gives you working capital even if it is only through equity loans.

 

[The Ripper]

They can't stop Stan from physically moving. They can "stop" him from moving if they want to. We're confusing the ability to stop him with the desire to stop him. No matter what court case Stan wins or how many stadiums he builds, there is no law of the land that says the NFL has to pay him TV money or anything else if he violates the organization rules. There is no law that can force them to schedule games for the Rams to play, both effectively destroying Stan's business. They can do this. They won't, because they don't want that. Not because they can't.

There is it's called restraint of trade

 

[nighttrain]

Biggest issue i see is that SK is building the stadium in Inglewood with mostly, or all, his own money. He doesnt have to let the Chargers or Oakland play there. Now if they want to make a deal to play in Anaheim or the ruins of the Coliseum, God Bless, personally i found that both places sucked for viewing a sporting event, any event, but most particularly a NFL game
regards
train

 

[The Ripper]

when I hear the term "NFL insiders" I immediately get skeptical. And maybe that's on me. I have a skeptical nature. but it just seems to me that if the NFL wanted the raiders to play in LEVI they would have got involved and set that stadium up for 2 teams. It seems like most people agree that it is not setup for 2 teams currently. So the Raiders are going somewhere.

If they move to LA they will instantly be worth 2-3x what they are worth now according to people from LA who claim to know. (I'm skeptical of that too, but I'm just trying to go by the logic that a lot of Californians are using to bolster their view that the Rams are moving to LA and no one can stop it.)

if the team is worth 2-3x as much right off the bat. That gives you working capital even if it is only through equity loans.

I do too because most insiders get the information from the same source.

Levi was built for 2 teams and Grubman said that the 49ers have kept that intact. Goodell mentioned his desire at the opening for the Raiders to share the stadium.

The problem with debt for teams is that the NFL doesn't want a situations like the Dodgers and Expos from happening with one of their teams. The teams are only worth as much as someone is willing to buy them for. On the Forbes show on the YES Network they said the Clipper Effect is dead and they used some of the recent and potential sales in the NBA to explain it.

 

[blue4]

There is it's called restraint of trade

I very much doubt that applies as the NFL wouldn't be restraining Stan from doing anything. He would be free to sit in LA, no fees. You're saying the NFL not only can't stop it's teams from acting alone, but the govt will also force the other teams to play with them? What's stopping me from starting a team then? They can't stop me from locating where I want, they can't force me to pay location fees and they have to schedule games for me otherwise it's restricting my trade.

 

[The Ripper]

I very much doubt that applies as the NFL wouldn't be restraining Stan from doing anything. He would be free to sit in LA, no fees. You're saying the NFL not only can't stop it's teams from acting alone, but the govt will also force the other teams to play with them? What's stopping me from starting a team then? They can't stop me from locating where I want, they can't force me to pay location fees and they have to schedule games for me otherwise it's restricting my trade.

It does and so do other parts of the Sherman Act. The NFL would open themselves up to a major antitrust case that they would most likely lose and it would expose them to a multiple billion dollar settlement.

 

[bluecoconuts]

how are they going to convince them not to file, if they are so powerless to stop a billionaire from doing what he wants?

Luckily two out of the three aren't billionaires.

On a more serious note, it's more who has the ability to just go and do it despite what the NFL says rather than just wanting to do it. If it comes down to all three owners saying "too bad, I'm going anyway" then that's going to be just fine for Kroenke, who gets a year on Spanos and Davis, so it would be pretty likely one of them would pull away, likely Davis who doesn't have anywhere near the ability to fight the NFL.

If all three file, they can say no to one of the teams, but if all three teams just up and move anyway, that's where they have issues. I don't think Davis has that ability, and it's questionable that Spanos does as well. We all know Kroenke does, but the question is do any of these owners want to?

 

[blue4]

It does and so do other parts of the Sherman Act. The NFL would open themselves up to a major antitrust case that they would most likely lose and it would expose them to a multiple billion dollar settlement.

I can see that if they tried to force him to do something. They wouldn't be forcing him do anything. Especially if he just argued successfully that he is an independent business. I don't think it is as cut and dry as you say, but who cares. It's a pointless discussion about something not at all likely to happen. Like I said before, there's no desire, so why waste time talking about the ability.

 

[The Ripper]

I can see that if they tried to force him to do something. They wouldn't be forcing him do anything. Especially if he just argued successfully that he is an independent business. I don't think it is as cut and dry as you say, but who cares. It's a pointless discussion about something not at all likely to happen. Like I said before, there's no desire, so why waste time talking about the ability.

It won't happen you're right if your're talking about the penalties because there's always the possibility of a suit. Taking a team off the schedule is something that would cause problems for the other teams in the league, the NFLPA, the cities that the team was going to visit, the tv partners, sponsors and others. Withholding of shared tv revenues would allow a team to go out and cut it's own deal for tv coverage. There's just too much risk for the NFL.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Cracks me up how Stan is getting bashed here. Put the blame where it belongs, on St. Louis city officials and the CVC for offering Stan and Georgia a deal they knew they couldn't uphold. If they had lived up to the contract they offered to get the Rams to St. Louis in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.