New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

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.

He sued, pulled it and then changed his mind sued again . Shelly petitioned the probate court to make her the sole trustee because of Donald's mental capacity based on Alzheimers . The court granted her the right to sell the team regardless of Donald's suit. The banning for life is different from forcing the sale of the team plus the ban might have been lifted but the fine would remain since it went to charity. The owners had a vote scheduled to remove Sterling as an owner but the vote never happened because they were waiting for the outcome of Shelly's suit plus they didn't really want that to go to a vote.

 

[MrMotes]

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 bylaws are largely PR, that's one reason they're public. That doesn't mean no one follows them but they're more like by-suggestions than bylaws and when the NFL has had to go to court, they've generally lost to the individual owner...

 

[RamFan503]

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.

While you are right that Silver banned him, that had an urgency that couldn't wait until a vote of the owners. Not sure it would have held up if the owners or "board of governors" voted not to force a sale but yes, he did ban him. ok.

As to the suit still pending, I didn't see where he had changed his mind about one week after dropping the suit. I think the problem he has there is that his wife has apparently demonstrated her position to enact the sale. He is still suing on 1st Amendment basis and whether the NBA had to right to fine him and ban him.

Even though it is very much apples to oranges, it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I just don't buy that the NFL could come up with a realistic level of damages from a team moving from one market to another. Otherwise, they'd be violating that by allowing any team to move - especially from markets that actually have higher populations than St Louis and whose markets in their analysis are estimated to be able to support more pro franchises.

 

[MrMotes]

Also, assuming Kroenke does intend to move, he has a case that he's entitled to according to the bylaws...

 

[12intheBox]

The bylaws are largely PR, that's one reason they're public. That doesn't mean no one follows them but they're more like by-suggestions than bylaws and when the NFL has had to go to court, they've generally lost to the individual owner...

I can see that argument going over very well in court. "Your honor, I know my client signed these bylaws but he didn't think they were actual bylaws - just by-suggestions. And furthermore, other owners have had success in court against the league so my client should enjoy similar success."

 

[12intheBox]

Also, assuming Kroenke does intend to move, he has a case that he's entitled to according to the bylaws...

Do you think he still has a case after a league vote - assuming the vote doesn't go his way?

 

[RamFan503]

The bylaws are largely PR, that's one reason they're public. That doesn't mean no one follows them but they're more like by-suggestions than bylaws and when the NFL has had to go to court, they've generally lost to the individual owner...

Being that the NFL is a non-profit, those bylaws are both required to exist and required to be made public. Like any political or educational organization that falls under a c3 or c4 designation, they are required to have bylaws.

From my time with political and educational non-profits, I would say that some bylaws are enforceable - as with when it comes to what they do with monies brought in by the organization or how decisions are made regarding those monies. Others are more guidelines as to how they will run things and the like. The latter can be changed at any time and are not necessarily considered enforceable. But the owners are essentially board members - not employees of the NFL. So they or their teams don't really fall under the enforceability section of the bylaws unless they do something actually illegal with NFL funds.

This is just my opinion on this and I could be wrong but history has pretty much born this out.

 

[The Ripper]

I can see that argument going over very well in court. "Your honor, I know my client signed these bylaws but he didn't think they were actual bylaws - just by-suggestions. And furthermore, other owners have had success in court against the league so my client should enjoy similar success."

It doesn't matter that they signed and agreed. All the bylaws must comply with existing laws in order to be enforced.

 

[12intheBox]

It doesn't matter that they signed and agreed. All the bylaws must comply with existing laws in order to be enforced.

Is this where we go back to restraint of trade? If so, I go back to wondering why I can't start a team and have them play in the NFL.

 

[RamFan503]

Is this where we go back to restraint of trade? If so, I go back to wondering why I can't start a team and have them play in the NFL.

I think there is a bit of a difference between giving someone something they've never had and taking things away from someone who is already established as an owner of an NFL team. The right of someone to force an entity to give them value simply isn't there. Much different than the ability to take value away.

 

[12intheBox]

I think there is a bit of a difference between giving someone something they've never had and taking things away from someone who is already established as an owner of an NFL team. The right of someone to force an entity to give them value simply isn't there. Much different than the ability to take value away.

I don't believe that's how restraint of trade law works. Either the league has an ability to reasonably control its membership or it doesn't. The "reasonably" is where the fight comes in - and the question I think we all keep circling around is whether that fight is worth the cost. We all say no - but several of you think Stan would run down that road anyway.

 

[The Ripper]

Is this where we go back to restraint of trade? If so, I go back to wondering why I can't start a team and have them play in the NFL.

Restraint of trade is that you are prevented from operating your business. Here's an example. When you buy a condo you get before closing the condo docs which detail the rules and regulations. Here in Florida the Condo Association is responsible for all sheet rock from an insurable claim but some docs say that it's the responsibility of the owner. The owner agreed to comply with all the docs but the docs don't comply with the state law so the courts will intervene to force the association to comply.

You can't start a team because the league has the right to limit it's membership to a certain number. It also has the right to screen applicants to ensure that that the new owner meets the standards. Just like a companies do when they run a background check for potential employees. The league also requires a vote of the membership to approve new owners

 

[12intheBox]

You can't start a team because the league has the right to limit it's membership to a certain number. It also has the right to screen applicants to ensure that that the new owner meets the standards. Just like a companies do when they run a background check for potential employees. The league also requires a vote of the membership to approve new owners

I understand the conflict of laws analysis - you can't enforce a contract that violates an existing otherwise enforceable law.

But where does the league get the "right" to limit its membership, control who can or can't qualify as an owner - but not have the same "right" to enforce their bylaws on relocation?

You know, the NFL redid their relocation by laws in the last decade or so. They did so - in my best guesstimate - with an eye on this very issue - LA. They knew when they enacted these new bylaws that SD, Oakland, and the Rams would all be in play.

None of this is a surprise to any of the parties. They have all predicted this - the league, the teams - the only ones surprised by every new development are the fans.

The entire thing is about leverage. If San Diego steps up - the Chargers stay and the Rams and Raiders move. If STL steps up, the Rams stay and the Chargers and Raiders move. Oakland was never going to step up.

The idea is to get the cities working against each other to give the best possible deal. Either way, the league wins.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't believe that's how restraint of trade law works. Either the league has an ability to reasonably control its membership or it doesn't. The "reasonably" is where the fight comes in - and the question I think we all keep circling around is whether that fight is worth the cost. We all say no - but several of you think Stan would run down that road anyway.

I only think Stan would go down that path if he honestly views the Riverfront Stadium as a real hindrance to his business interests and sees it as a last resort.

There is a burden of proof in a restraint of trade case that the offended party has established the trade or ability to do so. Also, beyond simple restraint of trade, an organization is not obligated to let new members in barring discrimination. They do however, have an obligation once a member has been included in their organization.

Being a member team of the NFL obviously carries value and is considered to be a large part of how that franchise conducts business. Taking that away can definitely be considered restraint of trade. At that point, the reasons for taking away NFL business and if those reasons coincide with the laws would be looked at by the courts. If the courts decide that the NFL had authority and reason to do what you have suggested, then the team would lose. But the courts have sided on the side of teams being individual businesses that are part of an organization so my guess is that the NFL would lose.

 

[RamFan503]

The idea is to get the cities working against each other to give the best possible deal. Either way, the league wins.

This I can completely agree with.

 

[The Ripper]

I understand the conflict of laws analysis - you can't enforce a contract that violates an existing otherwise enforceable law.

But where does the league get the "right" to limit its membership, control who can or can't qualify as an owner - but not have the same "right" to enforce their bylaws on relocation?

You know, the NFL redid their relocation by laws in the last decade or so. They did so - in my best guesstimate - with an eye on this very issue - LA. They knew when they enacted these new bylaws that SD, Oakland, and the Rams would all be in play.

None of this is a surprise to any of the parties. They have all predicted this - the league, the teams - the only ones surprised by every new development are the fans.

The entire thing is about leverage. If San Diego steps up - the Chargers stay and the Rams and Raiders move. If STL steps up, the Rams stay and the Chargers and Raiders move. Oakland was never going to step up.

The idea is to get the cities working against each other to give the best possible deal. Either way, the league wins.

The NFL only has one relocation bylaw 4.3 and it only requires a vote of 3/4 of the owners which the courts has said is to high. That bylaw has been in place since before the Raiders move. The current relocation guidelines have been revised but are basically the sames as they have been since 1984. They came from the 1984 congressional hearings. The NFL added some additional home market steps after the 1996 hearings but the guidelines are only league policy and can be changed at anytime. Goodell changed them this year by not accepting relocation applications. The main issue is that they're subjective and not objective. That's why the solution will be worked out behind closed doors and everyone will come out with something.

 

[RamFan503]

But where does the league get the "right" to limit its membership, control who can or can't qualify as an owner - but not have the same "right" to enforce their bylaws on relocation?

Any league or organization can limit its membership as long as the criteria is not considered discriminatory. And even at that, discrimination is often allowable within the definition of the group or organization. But if they try to enforce a bylaw that is considered merely managerial in nature or would constitute restraint of trade, their bylaws amount to nothing more than agreed upon suggestions.

They may - as you have suggested - strengthened the wording of the relocation bylaws to make them better withstand scrutiny. But I find it funny that no one has ever mentioned specifically what those changes are. I have read the old bylaws and the "new" bylaws and I can't see the changes that make them more enforceable. And unless I missed it or forgot about it, this is a question that has yet to be answered by anyone in the NFL OR the media.

 

[12intheBox]

I'll assume you have seen this article since its pretty dated. But still ....


"since the Raiders and Rams left Southern California after the 1994 season, the NFL has strengthened its relocation guidelines, and won a legal battle with late Raiders owner Al Davis regarding his claim he owned the rights to the L.A. market."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150117-story.html#page=1


Ok. Maybe it does say guidelines.

 

[Mackeyser]

so bringing the Rams to LA automatically doubles the value of the Rams, but not the Chargers and Raiders? come on now.

Basically. Because those teams are already in CA, they would increase in a new stadium, but not to the degree that the Rams would.

As well, the Rams would be moving to a "franchise" level mega complex and the NFL would actually move their West Coast broadcast facilities NFLN to there as well.

The Carson facility isn't anything like that.

 

[The Ripper]

I'll assume you have seen this article since its pretty dated. But still ....


"since the Raiders and Rams left Southern California after the 1994 season, the NFL has strengthened its relocation guidelines, and won a legal battle with late Raiders owner Al Davis regarding his claim he owned the rights to the L.A. market."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150117-story.html#page=1


Ok. Maybe it does say guidelines.

Reporters often get it wrong because they never saw the old guidelines. Plus, they take the articles from other reporters and use that as their source. Good example is that there are a few reporters that said there were no formal relocation guidelines in 1994 which is not true.

The last Raiders suits had multiple issues and it wasn't directly related to relocation. The main problem for Al was that the NFL Finance Committee approved his proposed Hollywood Park Stadium but AL filed for relocation back to Oakland which was also was recommended for approval.