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
Agreed - it's like when I read hypothetical's that talk about how Stan could "negotiate" his own TV contracts in LA and how that would be beneficial to him.. just lol... clearly they don't understand the anti-trust laws, its benefit to the league, the domino effect it would have if the league lost it, and why that would that never happen. It's also funny to think that the NFL would regionally or nationally broadcast an owner's games that went rogue (which is why i say he wouldn't make money this way - only "LA" would get their local broadcast; the rest of the time it'd be the other teams broadcast, both nationally and their own local market.)

just sit back and grab your popcorn :D:party:

Beneficial just look at some of the regional contracts for NBA and MLB teams. How about Dish they would love to broadcast 16 NFL games. The NFL would be foolish to flex it's monopolistic muscles by blocking the tv coverage during an anti trust case.

I guess that multiple judges in different cities and even the Supreme Court don't understand the anti trust laws either.
 
Last edited:

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Beneficial just look at some of the regional contracts for NBA and MLB teams. How about Dish they would love to broadcast 16 NFL games.

MLB and NBA don't have agreements with 1 group of owners and then solo owners

Dish does broadcast games....

http://www.dish.com/nfl-redzone/

I guess that multiple judges in different cities and even the Supreme Court don't understand the anti trust laws either.

You mean that they're not super simple and cut and dry as some on here lead you to believe?

I don't get why you keep quoting rules and bylaws from 1995 when people keep are talking about post 1995 rules - and its incredibly naive to think the NFL hasn't tweaked their contracts and franchise agreements to prevent a move as such. It has been mentioned before - and this is the NFL, this is what they're notorious for. They always tweak contracts to best protect/safeguard themselves. My favorite is the black out rule - they had (and have) it written into their contracts with TV providers, so no matter what the FCC said, they legally didn't have to remove it. Senators continue to threaten them with their anti trust status, and boom, black out rule is magically gone... doesn't mean it won't be brought back in the future though, and if it does, watch the same song and dance play out.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
@RamFan503 and @The Ripper

Trask was interviewed recently, not back when the Raiders moved. Maybe she was interviewed back then I have not read that and it doesn't really matter. The league changed the rules some years back. Previously there was nothing in place to stop owners from moving if they wanted to do so.

Sometime after that the NFL made the changes in the bylaws.

I'm not sure why that is hard to see.......

Here is an easy way to explain it.

An owner used to be able to move their team anytime and anywhere without the NFL's approval.

Now they are not allowed to do so under new bylaws. And if they do they will be punished severely.

Did that help? :ROFLMAO:

SIDENOTE: only a really stupid owner would even consider going "rogue" it would be the end of their membership in the club IMO.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Thx Spike I really do appreciate that. People don't realize how the powers that be (they don't realize either) the scope of the situation here. The cancer rate is 500% higher here than the national average. There have been multi-million $$ settlements, whole blocks of houses have been bought and torn down. I have dozens of neighbors that have died of cancer. The value of property within 5 square miles is half of what it should be.
I've had conversations with EPA and Calif. State Board of Health inspectors, and what they tell me is depressing. The cold hard facts are that after over 60 years of pollution, its almost like a dead zone, there's no real way to clean it all up, short of moving everyone out, and digging down 50 feet and trucking the whole mess somewhere else. And that's not going to happen. The idea of putting some kind of cap on it won't work either because they've already tried that. the methane still finds a way out. And what about that next earthquake?

Getting the folks of Carson' hopes up, AGAIN, is not fair, or the citizens of Oakland and San Diego, by using Carson site as a bargaining chip to get new stadiums.
Bubba -

I'll admit that I didn't read the reports you recently posted. But I remember reading before that they simply don't even know what is in some of those barrels from I think it was the 50s? Supposedly there are believed to be chemical compounds that have been outlawed for decades. Do you know if this is true?

One of the things behind the idea of building a stadium on that site that would scare the crap out of me if I were living close by would be that they apparently will have to drill to sink what amount to pilings deep enough to hit bedrock. That would indicate to me that they would need to drill into the layer that contains those barrels - no? I'm quite familiar with the process of drilling and setting casings. It is not exactly conducive to complete containment of spoils. There is bound to be spoils throughout the site that will have to be cleaned up after each hole is drilled.

Another thing is, how do you really seal off all those pilings and structure that will have to reach through the proposed plastic(guessing more like butyl) barrier? In what the project designers have said, have you seen where they have either addressed this or mentioned another similar project where this is working?

Got any insight on any of this? Feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong too. I just can't get past what I have read about that site and wonder how in the world such a huge stadium could work on it.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
MLB and NBA don't have most of the owners with one ag

Dish does broadcast games....

http://www.dish.com/nfl-redzone/



You mean that they're not super simple and cut and dry as some on here lead you to believe?

I don't get why you keep quoting rules and bylaws from 1995 when people keep are talking about post 1995 rules - and its incredibly naive to think the NFL hasn't tweaked their contracts and franchise agreements to prevent a move as such. It has been mentioned before - and this is the NFL, this is what they're notorious for. They always tweak contracts to best protect/safeguard themselves. My favorite is the black out rule - they had (and have) it written into their contracts with TV providers, so no matter what the FCC said, they legally didn't have to remove it. Senators continue to threaten them with their anti trust status, and boom, black out rule is magically gone... doesn't mean it won't be brought back in the future though, and if it does, watch the same song and dance play out.

The rules are basically the same. No one has said what makes the new ones any more enforceable. There are no new tweaks and the agreements are spelled out in the Constitution and Bylaws. The NFL works for and at the discretion of the owners not the other way around.

A few Senators can say what they want. They won't do anything. They make a big deal bring everyone to a hearing of a committee and that's it. There's no groundswell of support in this country to go after any of the sports leagues.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
@RamFan503 and @The Ripper

Trask was interviewed recently, not back when the Raiders moved. Maybe she was interviewed back then I have not read that and it doesn't really matter. The league changed the rules some years back. Previously there was nothing in place to stop owners from moving if they wanted to do so.

Sometime after that the NFL made the changes in the bylaws.

I'm not sure why that is hard to see.......

Here is an easy way to explain it.

An owner used to be able to move their team anytime and anywhere without the NFL's approval.

Now they are not allowed to do so under new bylaws. And if they do they will be punished severely.

Did that help? :ROFLMAO:

SIDENOTE: only a really stupid owner would even consider going "rogue" it would be the end of their membership in the club IMO.


I heard the interview and multiple others. The rules haven't changed that much. Pull them up they're posted on the internet. The only bylaw is 4.3 an that hasn't changed. It only requires a vote. The relocation guidelines are league policy derived from 8.5 the commissioners powers to establish policy. and to interrupt the bylaws
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Trask was interviewed recently, not back when the Raiders moved. Maybe she was interviewed back then I have not read that and it doesn't really matter. The league changed the rules some years back. Previously there was nothing in place to stop owners from moving if they wanted to do so.
I don't know of any Trask interview from when the Raiduhs moved. I'm referring to the two interviews she gave recently.

Sometime after that the NFL made the changes in the bylaws.

I'm not sure why that is hard to see.......
Because neither you nor anyone else has said what those changes are - only that changes have been made and they are super duper strong and no one can get past them. But you may feel free to enlighten us on the specific changes. C'mon Les - go for it.

Now they are not allowed to do so under new bylaws. And if they do they will be punished severely.

Did that help? :ROFLMAO:
You wouldn't believe the originality of that thought. Um.... how could it help? Did you give even a spec of information that would make it easier for us in the back of the class to understand?

SIDENOTE: only a really stupid owner would even consider going "rogue" it would be the end of their membership in the club IMO.
You mean like Davis, Georgia, Davis, Bidwell, Modell, etc...?
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Dish does broadcast games....
I had Dish. Have you ever watched the Red Zone on Dish? You might as well be watching Sports Center and hoping your team's highlight comes up.

BTW - Stan owns a TV and radio network that plays the games from his other teams.

I don't get why you keep quoting rules and bylaws from 1995 when people keep are talking about post 1995 rules - and its incredibly naive to think the NFL hasn't tweaked their contracts and franchise agreements to prevent a move as such. It has been mentioned before - and this is the NFL, this is what they're notorious for. They always tweak contracts to best protect/safeguard themselves. My favorite is the black out rule - they had (and have) it written into their contracts with TV providers, so no matter what the FCC said, they legally didn't have to remove it. Senators continue to threaten them with their anti trust status, and boom, black out rule is magically gone... doesn't mean it won't be brought back in the future though, and if it does, watch the same song and dance play out.
And I don't get why you keep using the blackout rule as some sort of anti-trust blanket. It is highly unlikely that the gov't will get involved with the move - no matter who moves and they are even less likely to do anything about their anti-trust status because of a move. There are far more people in the SD and Oakland area anyway. If they were going to go that route, why wouldn't they get involved over not only one of those teams leaving their fans but both?

The NFL is actually notorious for talking a good game when it comes to their owners but has done a woeful job of ever demonstrating any kind of power or control over them.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSED FRANCHISE RELOCATIONS
Hey man. Could you also post the new ones? I could look them up again but I figured you could do it quicker and might already have them on your computer.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And I don't get why you keep using the blackout rule as some sort of anti-trust blanket. It is highly unlikely that the gov't will get involved with the move - no matter who moves and they are even less likely to do anything about their anti-trust status because of a move. There are far more people in the SD and Oakland area anyway. If they were going to go that route, why wouldn't they get involved over not only one of those teams leaving their fans but both?

The example was not about them getting involved in the move, it was how the NFL safeguards themselves in their contracts.

However I don't think the NFL will get involved in the move most likely - all bets are off though if they go to litigation.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The rules are basically the same. No one has said what makes the new ones any more enforceable. There are no new tweaks and the agreements are spelled out in the Constitution and Bylaws.

I'm talking about the contracts and franchise agreements between the clubs; not their "Bylaws and rules".

The NFL works for and at the discretion of the owners not the other way around.


Yea a group of owners - not one individual owner as it seems to be portrayed here as if the NFL is completely subject to Kroenke and whatever he decides to do.

A few Senators can say what they want. They won't do anything. They make a big deal bring everyone to a hearing of a committee and that's it. There's no groundswell of support in this country to go after any of the sports leagues.

Clearly the NFL felt differently - they didn't have to get rid of the rule, and have shown a reluctance in the past to do so.
 
Last edited:

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Hey man. Could you also post the new ones? I could look them up again but I figured you could do it quicker and might already have them on your computer.
A. Negotiations Prior to League Consideration

1. Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community. A club may not, however, grant exclusive negotiating rights to a community or potential stadium landlord other than one in its current home territory.

2. All clubs, at any time during their stadium negotiations, are free to seek the assistance of the League Office and the Stadium Committee, on either a formal or informal basis. If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations. Upon such a declaration, the League may elect to become directly involved in the negotiations.

3. The League's policy and procedures on franchise relocation do not restrict any club's ability to discuss a possible relocation, or to negotiate a proposed lease or other arrangements, with a community outside its home territory. Nor do they restrict the ability of multiple clubs to negotiate terms of a proposed relocation with a single community.

In evaluating a proposed franchise relocation and making the business judgment inherent in such consideration, the membership is entitled to consider a wide range of appropriate factors. Each club should consider whether the League's collective interests (which include, for example, the League's television interests, the League's interest in strong and geographically distributed franchises, the League's interest in securing attractive stadium facilities in which to play its games, and the League's interest in having financially viable franchises) would be advanced or harmed by allowing a club to leave its assigned home territory to assume a League-owned opportunity in another community. These collective interests generally include having clubs in the country's most populous areas, taking into account competitive entertainment alternatives, stadium options, and other factors.

Like proposed transfers to a different home territory, a transfer of a club's playing site to a different location within its home territory may also raise issues of League-wide significance. Accordingly, while these procedures apply to any proposed move to a new home territory, the Commissioner may also require that some or all of these procedures be followed with respect to a proposed move within a club's existing home territory.

A. Procedures Relating to Notice and Evaluation of the Proposed Transfer

Before any club may transfer its franchise or playing site outside its current home territory, the club must submit a proposal for such transfer to the League on the following basis:

1. The club must give the Commissioner written notice of the proposed transfer, including the date on which the proposed relocation is to become effective, and publish the notice in newspapers of general circulation within the incumbent community. The notice must be filed no later than February 15 of the year in which the move is scheduled to occur. The League will provide copies of the notice to governmental and business representatives of both the incumbent community and the community to which the team proposes to move, as well as the stadium authority (if any) in the incumbent community (the "interested parties").

2. The notice must be accompanied by a "statement of reasons" in support of the proposed transfer. The statement must address each of the factors outlined in Part C below, and may also identify and discuss any other relevant business factors that the club believes support its request to move. The Statement must also include all of the material noted in Appendix One.

3. With the assistance of appropriate League committees, the Commissioner will evaluate the proposed transfer and report to the membership. The Commissioner may also convene a special committee to perform fact-finding or other functions with respect to any such proposed transfer.

4. Interested parties will have an opportunity to provide oral and/or written comments regarding the proposed transfer, including at a public hearing conducted by the League in the community from which the team seeks to relocate; written comments may be submitted within 15 days of the conclusion of such hearing.

5. Following the Commissioner's report on the proposed transfer, the proposal will be presented to the membership for action in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws, either at a Special Meeting of the League held for that purpose or at the Annual Meeting.

6. After any League vote on a proposed relocation, the League will:

i. publish, within 30 days of any relocation decision, a written statement of reasons in newspapers of general circulation within the incumbent community setting forth the basis of its decision in light of the League's rules and procedures for evaluating franchise relocation; and

ii. deliver copies of its written statement of reasons to the local governments of the community from which the club seeks to relocate and any sports authority or similar entity with jurisdiction over the stadium or facility from which the club seeks to relocate.

C. Factors That May Be Considered In Evaluating The Proposed Transfer

The League has analyzed many factors in making prior business judgments concerning proposed franchise relocations. Such business judgments may be informed through consideration of the factors listed below, as well as other appropriate factors that are considered relevant by the Commissioner or the membership.[1]

Any club proposing to transfer should, in its submission to the Commissioner, present the club's position as to the bearing of these factors on its proposed transfer, stating specifically why such a move would be justified with reference to these considerations. In reporting to the membership, the Commissioner will also address these factors.

In considering a proposed relocation, the Member Clubs are making a business judgment concerning how best to advance their collective interests. Guidelines and factors such as those identified below are useful ways to organize data and to inform that business judgment. They are intended to assist the clubs in making a decision based on their judgment and experience, and taking into account those factors deemed relevant to and appropriate with regard to each proposed move. Those factors include:

1. The extent to which the club has satisfied, particularly in the last four years, its principal obligation of effectively representing the NFL and serving the fans in its current community; whether the club has previously relocated and the circumstances of such prior relocation;

2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the current community;

3. The adequacy of the stadium in which the club played its home games in the previous season; the willingness of the stadium authority or the community to remedy any deficiencies in or to replace such facility, including whether there are legislative or referenda proposals pending to address these issues; and the characteristics of the stadium in the proposed new community;

4. The extent to which the club, directly or indirectly, received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any other form of public financial support and the views of the stadium authority (if public) in the current community;

5. The club's financial performance, particularly whether the club has incurred net operating losses (on an accrual basis of accounting), exclusive of depreciation and amortization, sufficient to threaten the continued financial viability of the club, as well as the club's financial prospects in its current community;

6. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations (and enlisted the League office to assist in such negotiations) with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory and afforded that community a reasonable amount of time to address pertinent proposals;

7. The degree to which the owners or managers of the club have contributed to circumstances which might demonstrate the need for such relocation;

8. Whether any other member club of the League is located in the community in which the club is currently located;

9. Whether the club proposes to relocate to a community or region in which no other member club of the League is located; and the demographics of the community to which the team proposes to move;

10. The degree to which the interests reflected in the League's collectively negotiated contracts and obligations (e.g., labor agreements, broadcast agreements) might be advanced or adversely affected by the proposed relocation, either standing alone or considered on a cumulative basis with other completed or proposed relocations;

11. The effect of the proposed relocation on NFL scheduling patterns, travel requirements, divisional alignments, traditional rivalries, and fan and public perceptions of the NFL and its member clubs; and

12. Whether the proposed relocation, for example, from a larger to a smaller television market, would adversely affect a current or anticipated League revenue or expense stream (for example, network television) and, if so, the extent to which the club proposing to transfer is prepared to remedy that adverse effect.

D. Existing Leases

1. No request to relocate shall be unconditionally approved, nor shall a relocation be allowed to take effect, if it would result in a breach of the club's current stadium lease. This provision shall not apply if the club and its landlord agree to terminate the lease or if there is a final court order terminating the lease or concluding that the lease does not preclude a relocation.

2. A decision by the League conditionally or unconditionally authorizing a member club to relocate shall not affect the enforceability under state law of a stadium lease to which that member club is a party.

E. Payments Associated with an Approved Transfer

If a club's proposal to relocate to a new home territory is approved, the relocating club will ordinarily be expected to pay a transfer fee to the League. The transfer fee will compensate other member clubs of the League for the loss of the opportunity appropriated by the relocating club and/or the enhancement (if any) in the value of the franchise resulting from the move.

The Commissioner may recommend a transfer fee to the membership and Finance Committee for consideration in connection with any proposed transfer that he recommends be approved. Among the factors to be considered in the recommendation of such fee will be:

1. The income streams available to the club in its new location and the likelihood that they will be realized (which may be affected by community or business guarantees or similar undertakings);

2. The income streams historically available to the club in its previous location, and the incremental income streams (if any) that could reasonably be expected to be made available to the club in its old location;

3. The expenses to be borne by the club in its current and proposed locations;

4. The expenses that could reasonably be expected to be assumed by parties other than the club if the relocation does not take place;

5. The desirability of the club's current and proposed stadia as locations for professional football games;

6. The club's current status under any revenue sharing plans then in effect and its anticipated status if the move were approved;

7. The effect of the proposed relocation on current or anticipated League-level revenue and expense streams; and

8. The demographics of the club's old and new markets.

The Commissioner's recommendation of a transfer fee will not be based on any effect that the proposed move would have on any salary cap or similar player-employment arrangements.

The membership will determine the transfer fee (or, in the alternative, a recommended, binding method for determining the transfer fee), if any, at the time it approves any proposed club relocation. The terms on which the transfer fee will be paid will be set forth in the resolution itself, and will be reflected in appropriate documentation acceptable to the Commissioner and the Finance Committee.

In addition, in certain circumstances, the League's collective interests may depend upon the maintenance of quality franchises in specific geographic areas. If a team proposes to relocate into, or to relocate from, such an area, in evaluating the proposed relocation, the Commissioner will and the membership may take into account, in determining the appropriate transfer fee (if any), the League's interest in encouraging the proposed relocation, discouraging the proposed relocation, or permitting the relocation on terms that would permit the League to restore a meaningful presence in the area being vacated by the relocating club.

Finally, if League-level revenue or expense streams or visiting team shares are projected to be adversely affected by a proposed relocation, on either a short-term or long-term basis, based upon a recommendation by the Commissioner and Finance Committee the relocating club will be required to indemnify other members of the League for adverse effects that could result from the proposed relocation. If such recommendation is included by the membership in the resolution authorizing the move, the Commissioner will, in consultation with the Finance Committee, negotiate with the relocating club appropriate indemnification arrangements, including the extent to which the relocating club may participate in League revenue sharing pools, to be reflected in documentation acceptable to the Commissioner and the Finance Committee.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
MLB and NBA don't have agreements with 1 group of owners and then solo owners
BTW - not sure what this means. But the Dodgers have a local deal, the Yankees certainly do through the YES network, Stan owns the network his Avs, Nuggets, and Rapids (?) play on when they are not nationally televised games. In fact, I think NFL teams even have some local market deals not shared with other owners. Not sure on that last one but why in the world would the Rams be spending the kind of money they have expanding into other regional markets if they really have no more to gain? What would LA, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, etc.. be worth as a local TV market?
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
BTW - not sure what this means.

This is the scenario if "Kroenke were able to negotiate his own rights" thats been peddled about a few times. (which again is ridiculous and doesnt address the many problems that would come with it league wide - revenue streams, salary cap, etc.)

But the Dodgers have a local deal, the Yankees certainly do through the YES network, Stan owns the network his Avs, Nuggets, and Rapids (?) play on when they are not nationally televised games. In fact, I think NFL teams even have some local market deals not shared with other owners. Not sure on that last one but why in the world would the Rams be spending the kind of money they have expanding into other regional markets if they really have no more to gain? What would LA, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, etc.. be worth as a local TV market?

but the MLB has not collectively as one group negotiated all the broadcast rights as one - hence what the Anti-trust act allows the NFL to do and a big reason why the NFL loves their status.

Easier to just charge one high price than for clubs to price compete against each other.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I'm talking about the contracts and franchise agreements between the clubs; not their "Bylaws and rules".
Again, that's it no separate contracts the bylaws are it and the teams are't franchises so no franchise agreements

Yea a group of owners - not one individual owner as it seems to be portrayed here as if the NFL is completely subject to Kroenke and whatever he decides to do.

That's the way it's always been. You can also add Spanos but he doesn't have the resources move on his own.


Clearly the NFL felt differently - they didn't have to get rid of the rule, and have shown a reluctance in the past to do so.
The NFL has been talking about it for years for business reasons. It was also was a major discussion during the negotiations for the tv contracts.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
This is the scenario if "Kroenke were able to negotiate his own rights" thats been peddled about a few times. (which again is ridiculous and doesnt address the many problems that would come with it league wide - revenue streams, salary cap, etc.)



but the MLB has not collectively as one group negotiated all the broadcast rights as one - hence what the Anti-trust act allows the NFL to do and a big reason why the NFL loves their status.

Easier to just charge one high price than for clubs to price compete against each other.

Jerry Jones negotiates his own merchandising and sponsorships which are both shared revenues. A team that is excluded would be able to get his own tv contract just like Jerry does for the other revenues.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Again, that's it no separate contracts the bylaws are it and the teams are't franchises so no franchise agreements

The clubs have a contract with the NFL/between each other. We're not privy to those details nor are they even remotely mentioned in the by laws.

That's the way it's always been. You can also add Spanos but he doesn't have the resources move on his own.

I don't see anyone on here talking about how the league basically would have to cower to Spanos - just Kroenke, and only because of his assets. And if people so blindly assume he will win hands down in court, then the same thing would apply for Spanos. His financial resources are irrelevant when in the end the NFL would be responsible for triple damages in potential revenue lost and all the costs associated with the lawsuit including Lawyer fees and specialist fees.

However, I don't think it's that cut and dry - and the NFL has made tweaks and changes. Just because you can't see their contracts doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not saying its a slam dunk they'll win in court if it went that far; but it's naive to assume nothing has changed since the relocation era.

The NFL has been talking about it for years for business reasons. It was also was a major discussion during the negotiations for the tv contracts.

The NFL has consistently refused to remove it, and obviously it wasn't a major discussion during tv contracts since its STILL written into their agreements. You may think its a coincidence that 2 months after their last threat the move was removed, I don't.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
The NFL has consistently refused to remove it, and obviously it wasn't a major discussion during tv contracts since its STILL written into their agreements. You may think its a coincidence that 2 months after their last threat the move was removed, I don't.
You can assume this but the FCC also removed their blackout requirement shortly before the NFL decided to lift theirs. Before that point, even if the NFL wanted to, they would have been in violation of FCC rules. I have no doubt that politicians had a lot to do with the FCC and NFL lifting their blackout rule but it was a rule that was actually negatively affecting TV contracts and I don't assume that the NFL itself didn't have something to do with it while allowing some politicians to do some grand standing.

The NFL still has it in their contracts. It could be that they are just testing the lifting of the blackout rule to see how it goes. It could be that the networks have been twisting their arms, and yes, it could be that the politicians have been threatening them.

After all - it's not unlike the NFL to cave when threatened. :snicker:
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
The clubs have a contract with the NFL/between each other. We're not privy to those details nor are they even remotely mentioned in the by laws.



I don't see anyone on here talking about how the league basically would have to cower to Spanos - just Kroenke, and only because of his assets. And if people so blindly assume he will win hands down in court, then the same thing would apply for Spanos. His financial resources are irrelevant when in the end the NFL would be responsible for triple damages in potential revenue lost and all the costs associated with the lawsuit including Lawyer fees and specialist fees.

However, I don't think it's that cut and dry - and the NFL has made tweaks and changes. Just because you can't see their contracts doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not saying its a slam dunk they'll win in court if it went that far; but it's naive to assume nothing has changed since the relocation era.



The NFL has consistently refused to remove it, and obviously it wasn't a major discussion during tv contracts since its STILL written into their agreements. You may think its a coincidence that 2 months after their last threat the move was removed, I don't.

The Constitution and Bylaws are the basis for the contracts. ONLY. Kroenke had a condition but that was based on the Constitution and Bylaws. Other exceptions are voted on by the other owners and are included as a resolution.

Spanos doesn't have the money to relocate on his own. He can't build a stadium without assistance. He needs the G-4 loan and a banker. Goldman wouldn't finance the stadium if Spanos went on his own. Al Davis had a stadium and a will partner to fight the NFL.

It's never cut and dry but it would depend on the venue. The tweaks were all contained in the memo that the NFL sent to the teams in regards to relocation and that was leaked so all the information is public. The State of Minnesota also leaked the information during the battles with the Vikings and the NFL.

Think what you like but with or without a handful of grandstanding politicians that don't have the power to do anything on their own, the NFL would have removed the blackout rule. DirecTV has more power with the NFL than a few politicians
 
Status
Not open for further replies.