New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
but doesnt doubling your value help? all i keep hearing is how LA is the golden goose so to speak, i dont see how its going to hurt either team, yes there will be debt, but according to some on here they will damn near double their revenue, so that extra debt shouldnt be too hard to pay off.

It could if they sold off part of the team but that doesn't mean they will put it all back into the team. Neither Spanos or Davis own all or even a majority of their teams so they're limited in the amount that they can sell. Value will be determined by revenues not just by being in LA. I can't find the episode but on Forbes Sports Money on the YES network they debated whether the Balmer effect was dead because of the recent and potential sales in the NBA. The revenue numbers for Carson are lower than Inglewood so the higher debt costs will have a greater impact. The other issue in Carson is that at least according to Dan Sileo the PSL projections used by teams are much higher than the numbers from the NFL and also at least publicly only Fabiani has said that G-4 loans would be available in LA. Grubman said that the teams would have to apply and qualify to get the loans. Carson will also have the ongoing cost associated with the methane removal that's projected to be close to 4 million per year. The other factor for revenues is the corporate sponsors and the competition between the Raiders and Chargers for that money. The whole problem is that it's like picking the Super Bowl winner today you don't know anything till the games are played and in this case, until the stadium is built and operating.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
They can add temporoary grandstands and field seating adding up to 41,000. they did this with a Chargers pre-season game and high school football playoff games.
Wait. I thought only Stan did this kind of underhanded souring of his market.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
Meaning what?

Meaning is there any ability to enforce the bylaws of the owners - the financial structure of the league - the agreement between the owners as they set up this multi billion dollar league or do you think it's anything goes?
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
And that's it? Nothing between owners at all?

Maybe just that they have to drink beer from a plastic cup not a glass.

I look at the NFL Constitution and Bylaws like a gentleman's agreement that can be changed at anytime to suit their needs. A good example is Wayne Huizenga and his battles over the cross ownership rules in the 1990's. The NFL threatened lawsuits against him for years if he didn't sell the Panthers and the Marlins. The battle went on till the issue with the Seahawks and the solution was Paul Allen but he had cross ownership issues so the NFL changed it's bylaws to allow the sale. This change also eliminated the cross ownership issue for Huizenga.
 

Spike14

UDFA
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
34
Name
Spike14
I'm still waiting for the media to give us the Calif. State Board of Health and EPA's take on the site. Pretty clear to all of us here in Carson why they haven't. Both those agencies are not going to give their approval for constuction until thier concerns are dealt with, and it may be years and millions before its all said and done.[/QUOTE]

I recognize your concerns over that site. I've never heard any mention of the 50K buried barrels of oil there. Certainly, that would be a significant impediment. However, the state of CA has already spoken on the subject.....from the LA Times.............

" The state of CA has essentially cleared it for development from an environmental standpoint. "......... state regulators say about $50 million in cleanup measures over the years has made the property nearly shovel-ready for construction. "It is safe," said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. "Everything is done."


Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved.


The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system. Eventually, the parcel would be capped with high-density plastic to prevent garbage-spawned gases from leaking into the air. The cap would be topped with layers of new soil, Yemut said.

"It will be expensive," he said of the remaining work, estimating the monthly costs of operating just the gas extraction wells at $200,000 to $300,000. Here's the source link if anyone is interested.


http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Meaning is there any ability to enforce the bylaws of the owners - the financial structure of the league - the agreement between the owners as they set up this multi billion dollar league or do you think it's anything goes?
I think it is very hard to say. The owners - from what I understand - have agreed on a variety of things as the best way to do business for all the teams. I'm not sure that they are legally binding on the individual franchises if one decides their business interests are being harmed by forever holding to those guidelines. If you think about what Jerruh did, that was a case where all the owners had decided what was best for all the teams, yet Jerruh didn't feel that allowed him the kind of business he knew he could get from his team ownership. It wasn't something the rest of the owners wanted to have happen but essentially - What could they do?
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
Maybe just that they have to drink beer from a plastic cup not a glass.

I look at the NFL Constitution and Bylaws like a gentleman's agreement that can be changed at anytime to suit their needs. A good example is Wayne Huizenga and his battles over the cross ownership rules in the 1990's. The NFL threatened lawsuits against him for years if he didn't sell the Panthers and the Marlins. The battle went on till the issue with the Seahawks and the solution was Paul Allen but he had cross ownership issues so the NFL changed it's bylaws to allow the sale. This change also eliminated the cross ownership issue for Huizenga.

A good example of the kind of compromises 32 owners will make to keep the $ flowing - which is why this won't end up in court - and why Stan won't move against a league vote.

The NFL is a different animal today than it was even 20 years ago. I know this thread didn't start the "Stan might go even without permission" narrative - but I think it's laughable how many people believe that he would be on ironclad legal ground to do so.

If a bylaw is in writing, it isn't a gentlemans agreement - it's a bylaw. The league can choose to look the other way - or they can choose to drop the hammer. Hell of a risk to run for a smart guy like Stan.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
I think it is very hard to say. The owners - from what I understand - have agreed on a variety of things as the best way to do business for all the teams. I'm not sure that they are legally binding on the individual franchises if one decides their business interests are being harmed by forever holding to those guidelines. If you think about what Jerruh did, that was a case where all the owners had decided what was best for all the teams, yet Jerruh didn't feel that allowed him the kind of business he knew he could get from his team ownership. It wasn't something the rest of the owners wanted to have happen but essentially - What could they do?

If it was covered by their existing agreement, they could enforce the agreement.

Just out of curiosity - do y'all think the NBA is a different legal structure or is Sterling going to have a big win years from now?
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
A good example of the kind of compromises 32 owners will make to keep the $ flowing - which is why this won't end up in court - and why Stan won't move against a league vote.

The NFL is a different animal today than it was even 20 years ago. I know this thread didn't start the "Stan might go even without permission" narrative - but I think it's laughable how many people believe that he would be on ironclad legal ground to do so.

If a bylaw is in writing, it isn't a gentlemans agreement - it's a bylaw. The league can choose to look the other way - or they can choose to drop the hammer. Hell of a risk to run for a smart guy like Stan.

The doesn't have a hammer and the only change is how much money they make. Nothing is ironclad because like all court cases the venue is important. They have punishments that could be seen as punitive. Taking away shared tv revenues allows an owner to cut his own tv deal and the NFL couldn't stop it legally. Taking the team off the schedule. That would never happen it would cause too many other issues especially with the NFLPA. The NFL was told to set up objective guidelines by the court to prevent unauthorized team relocation's. The judiciary committee also said the the NFL had the power but they were unwilling to change the guidelines from subjective to objective because the owners didn't want to give up the control
 

Spike14

UDFA
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
34
Name
Spike14
I'm not sure why so many folks out in LA/Carson are ringing their hands and moaning about the remediation of the Carson site. The state of CA Toxic Substances Control Department has already acknowledged the steps necessary, and the associated costs, to decontaminate the land.

The NFL, the Chargers, the Raiders, Goldman-Sachs, and the City of Carson would not have gone this far down the road and spent millions of dollars just to create a conniving ruse to gain leverage or challenge Kroenke.

Ultimately, the NFL might not deem Carson as the preferred site to house a stadium and new team. But, they certainly have no doubts that a stadium can be realized on this land eventually.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
The doesn't have a hammer and the only change is how much money they make. Nothing is ironclad because like all court cases the venue is important. They have punishments that could be seen as punitive. Taking away shared tv revenues allows an owner to cut his own tv deal and the NFL couldn't stop it legally. Taking the team off the schedule. That would never happen it would cause too many other issues especially with the NFLPA. The NFL was told to set up objective guidelines by the court to prevent unauthorized team relocation's. The judiciary committee also said the the NFL had the power but they were unwilling to change the guidelines from subjective to objective because the owners didn't want to give up the control

I wonder what gives the owners the cajones to feel like they can even hold a vote on the issue. Why bother voting on anything if the owners affected can just ignore it?

As for the taking them off the schedule - it would be simple. You start a new team (maybe even in St Louis) - the league runs it while they search for an owner. Every employment contract that the Rams have from top to bottom the league can just match for the new team.

Stan is left with nothing but a lawsuit.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
If it was covered by their existing agreement, they could enforce the agreement.

Just out of curiosity - do y'all think the NBA is a different legal structure or is Sterling going to have a big win years from now?
Then why didn't they with Jerruh?

And to answer your other question, I think that if any team owner was recorded saying those kinds of things, you are not going to see them hold onto their team for long - no matter the league. Think Marge Schott of the Reds. The players refuse to play, the other owners ostracize, the coaches won't coach, etc. Sterling was not removed from the league by the other owners, he was forced out by the whole. Plenty of attorneys at the time spoke out and said that he could stay if he wanted and the league would be powerless to get rid of him but that he would eventually have to sell anyway and lose the value of a franchise that had peaked in value.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I wonder what gives the owners the cajones to feel like they can even hold a vote on the issue. Why bother voting on anything if the owners affected can just ignore it?

As for the taking them off the schedule - it would be simple. You start a new team (maybe even in St Louis) - the league runs it while they search for an owner. Every employment contract that the Rams have from top to bottom the league can just match for the new team.

Stan is left with nothing but a lawsuit.

It's about the appearance. Some owners will comply even if they're right, to protect the league others won't. Bob Kraft decided not to fight the NFL's decision in court even though he had a good case,

Besides the billions the NFL would definitely lose by doing that, there would never be 24 owners that would vote for that because if the NFL did to one owner they could do it to another.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
Then why didn't they with Jerruh?

And to answer your other question, I think that if any team owner was recorded saying those kinds of things, you are not going to see them hold onto their team for long - no matter the league. Think Marge Schott of the Reds. The players refuse to play, the other owners ostracize, the coaches won't coach, etc. Sterling was not removed from the league by the other owners, he was forced out by the whole. Plenty of attorneys at the time spoke out and said that he could stay if he wanted and the league would be powerless to get rid of him but that he would eventually have to sell anyway and lose the value of a franchise that had peaked in value.

But that's not what happened. The NBA commissioner suspended him for life and they forced a sale - and he went kicking and screaming in court the whole way. The NBA made starlings wife indemnify them in all future lawsuits.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
But that's not what happened. The NBA commissioner suspended him for life and they forced a sale - and he went kicking and screaming in court the whole way. The NBA made starlings wife indemnify them in all future lawsuits.
He never actually went to court on it. And if he had, the opinions were mostly that he would have won but then lost in the end anyway as his team would be worth shit with him as an owner. The lawsuit was more over whether his wife had the authorization and power to sell the team to Ballmer - not on if the NBA had the power to ban him as an owner over his comments. In fact, Sterling was never formally banned, the commissioner stated that he would be banning him pending a vote by the owners.

Sterling sued - saying that the sale was not valid. He also sued on the basis that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated - which had not only attorneys saying he would likely win but even Kareem said he couldn't support what Sterling had said but he also couldn't support them banning him for things he said in private. Sterling dropped his suits shortly after the $2 Billion figure was agreed upon. It never got to court.

The issue where the NBA likely could have counter sued and won was that Sterling's comments were damaging to the NBA as a whole. Therefore the value of their product was being compromised by Sterling staying on as owner. If that case went to court, most people at the time thought the NBA would prevail.

Not sure the NFL could make the claim that the value of the NFL would be negatively affected by Stan moving the Rams to LA.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
He never actually went to court on it. And if he had, the opinions were mostly that he would have won but then lost in the end anyway as his team would be worth crap with him as an owner. The lawsuit was more over whether his wife had the authorization and power to sell the team to Ballmer - not on if the NBA had the power to ban him as an owner over his comments. In fact, Sterling was never formally banned, the commissioner stated that he would be banning him pending a vote by the owners.

Sterling sued - saying that the sale was not valid. He also sued on the basis that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated - which had not only attorneys saying he would likely win but even Kareem said he couldn't support what Sterling had said but he also couldn't support them banning him for things he said in private. Sterling dropped his suits shortly after the $2 Billion figure was agreed upon. It never got to court.

The issue where the NBA likely could have counter sued and won was that Sterling's comments were damaging to the NBA as a whole. Therefore the value of their product was being compromised by Sterling staying on as owner. If that case went to court, most people at the time thought the NBA would prevail.

Not sure the NFL could make the claim that the value of the NFL would be negatively affected by Stan moving the Rams to LA.



About the 2:20 mark.

And yeah, he totally sued and its still pending - he is saying that he could have gotten more than 2B (can you believe that crap?)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...rling-adds-wife-lawsuit-against-nba/70171256/


The NFL values its partnership between its host cities and its teams. Its not a huge stretch - especially in the era of the "integrity of the league"

Apples and Oranges - to be sure - but it seems incredibly foolish to not have checks and balances between one another in a multi billion dollar business and these guys aren't foolish.
 

bubbaramfan

Legend
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
7,029
That article is mis-leading. Toxic Substance Control does not have the last word on weather construction can begin. That belongs to the Calif. State Board of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. The site is also a Superfund site. (Del Amo Region 9).
Through this whole process, No one from the media, the Chargers, the Raiders, the City of Carson or the NFL have brought a spokesperson from either of these agencies in to publicly state the readiness of the proposed Carson site. (I don't think any of them want to) At the Carson City Hall Comptrollers Office is an outline by the EPA and the Calif. State Board of Health (see my previous post) of what needs to be addressed before either agency will give their OK for construction. That document is available for public viewing, but they will not let it be copied. I've read it. and whoever wrote that LA Times article should have read it before he wrote that piece.

Of course they don't want you to know about the corroding 55 gallon drums that are leaking to the surface, or the methane leaking up through over a dozen cracks. They want everyone to think they can start building a stadium in Carson anytime they want. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being mislead or a pawn in rich peoples schemes.

My property ( 4 blocks from the site) and everyone's in my neighborhood is valued about half of what it should, because of our closeness to the former landfill. My home would almost certainly double if a stadium were built. But I and my neighbors have been through all this more than a few times over the past 30 years. A Mall, a theather complex, a shopping center, a housing tract, and even a previous look by the NFL (1999-2000), for possible expansion. (it went to Houston). All shot down for the same reason. the cost of cleaning up the site to Board of Health and EPA standards. It is possible to build a stadium, given they do the cleanup. But saying the site is ready to build on now is an outright lie. ( the article does mention more of the methane venting still needs to be done). And it will probably take more than 18 to 24 months.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why 200 acres of prime real estate next to 2 major freeways has been vacant for over 50 years.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,055
Name
Wil Fay
How I think this thing ends:

Stan gets a sweet deal to stay in STL in a brand new stadium.

Stan sells the Inglewood project (at a considerable profit) to the Chargers and Raiders who share it moving to LA.

Stan insists that he never really wanted to leave - after all, he never said he wanted to leave, did he?

Winners: Stan, the Raiders, the Chargers, the NFL

Losers: whoever ends up paying for the bulk of the 2 new stadiums (which will be the taxpayers), the City of San Diego, and the city of Oakland
 
Status
Not open for further replies.