New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

A. Negotiations Prior to League Consideration

Thanks

 

[12intheBox]

@The Ripper - lets cut to the chase - if the league votes and goes with Carson and SD and Oak moving to LA - would you advise Stan to break ground on Inglewood and charge ahead anyway?

 

[iced]

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.

Selling merchandise to a consumer and selling TV Rights are not the same thing, nor remotely close. I wouldn't apply a one size fits all, particularly to the NFL's bread 'n butter of what drives their annual revenue.


@RamFan503, the MLB doesn't negotiate their broadcast rights as one like the NFL does (which is why the NFL loves its antitrust set up).. Think about how many football games are aired on tv, and how many baseball games are... Now this past year, MLB broke $8 billion this past year in annual revenue for their first time. The NFL? $9 billion. think about that - think about how many less games are played, yet the NFL makes more money. This is exactly why they love their anti trust status, and why all of their franchises are worth so much. They make more money together than they will individually.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/08/14/the-most-valuable-nfl-teams/

The National Football League continues to be the most lucrative sports league in the world.

The NFL’s 32 teams are worth, on average, $1.17 billion, 5% more than last year. The Cleveland Browns, a lousy team for years in a midsize market, sold for almost $1 billion last year.

In contrast, the world’s top 20 soccer teams have a mean value of $968 million. The average worth of Major League Baseball’s 30 teams is$744 million. And average values for the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, also each with 30 teams, are $509 million and $282 million, respectively.

This is why the NFL won't be dumb enough to revert to MLB's ways - and why its less profitable than how the NFL does it. They do it right way to maximize revenue.

 

[The Ripper]

Selling merchandise to a consumer and selling TV Rights are not the same thing, nor remotely close. I wouldn't apply a one size fits all, particularly to the NFL's bread 'n butter of what drives their annual revenue.


@RamFan503, the MLB doesn't negotiate their broadcast rights as one like the NFL does (which is why the NFL loves its antitrust set up).. Think about how many football games are aired on tv, and how many baseball games are... Now this past year, MLB broke $8 billion this past year in annual revenue for their first time. The NFL? $9 billion. think about that - think about how many less games are played, yet the NFL makes more money. This is exactly why they love their anti trust status, and why all of their franchises are worth so much. They make more money together than they will individually.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/08/14/the-most-valuable-nfl-teams/

Your point goes to why the NFL would not withhold shared revenues from a team. They're the ones with the most to lose. The team that was excluded would be allowed to cut their own deals without any threat of interference from the NFL.

It's not just selling merchandise. It's also production and distribution. The Cowboys can use anyone they want.

 

[iced]

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:

That's what I'm saying - the FCC could say whatever they want, but the NFL didn't have to get rid of it because it was in their contracts - the FCC couldn't touch them. That's why it took the Senators and congressmen to threaten them. Because it was written in, that was their "loophole" around the FCC.

 

[The Ripper]

@The Ripper - lets cut to the chase - if the league votes and goes with Carson and SD and Oak moving to LA - would you advise Stan to break ground on Inglewood and charge ahead anyway?

No

 

[RamFan503]

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.

Do you know this to be true? I can't find anything that says the NFL has a separate contract with owners beyond the bylaws et al that is already public. I would even question that they would be able to legally have such contracts being that the NFL is a non-profit. I believe all non-profits have to have all contracts and corporate structure open to the public.

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.

I don't see anyone on here assuming anything is a slam dunk. I don't assume Stan would win. I just don't see much indicating the NFL could or would be willing to fight him any more than they did Georgia. But that could be wrong as well. I don't think financial resources are irrelevant here but I also don't think it is a huge key.

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.

Not sure if it was a coincidence but the NFL and FCC both removed the blackout rule at the same time. The NFL would have had to have it in their contracts if it was an FCC requirement. If the FCC removes a requirement, it is simply a provision that both sides can decide not to enforce. I would guess that if the networks wanted the rule to be enforced, the NFL would certainly do so.

 

[iced]

Your point goes to why the NFL would not withhold shared revenues from a team. They're the ones with the most to lose. The team that was excluded would be allowed to cut their own deals without any threat of interference from the NFL.

No my point would be is that team can make deals on their own but that's a huge risk they're taking - they could make significantly less.. Jerry Jones prospered because of how the team was playing - he was able to label "America's team" and make tons of money off of them...They were superbowl champs multiple times...

A lesser team taking that gamble may not fair so great - but as a group they'll make more money.

But when it comes to the rights to air games - not sell their own equipment, I have hard time believing that one, particularly because another team is going to be involved that has their own contracts so it becomes a conflict. I see that being another huge lawsuit

 

[The Ripper]

No my point would be is that team can make deals on their own but that's a huge risk they're taking - they could make significantly less.. Jerry Jones prospered because of how the team was playing - he was able to label "America's team" and make tons of money off of them...They were superbowl champs multiple times...

A lesser team taking that gamble may not fair so great - but as a group they'll make more money.

But when it comes to the rights to air games - not sell their own equipment, I have hard time believing that one, particularly because another team is going to be involved that has their own contracts so it becomes a conflict. I see that being another huge lawsuit

Suit from who? The NFL gave approval for the team to get their own contract by excluding them. Not much of a risk since Kroenke has people that have done tv deals plus there are a lot of networks that would kill to have 16 NFL games

 

[iced]

Do you know this to be true? I can't find anything that says the NFL has a separate contract with owners beyond the bylaws et al that is already public. I would even question that they would be able to legally have such contracts being that the NFL is a non-profit. I believe all non-profits have to have all contracts and corporate structure open to the public.

Twas how it was explained to me by the Old man - And they do still have franchise agreements but it's not in the context of how Ripper perceived it.

And the NFL changed its status remember? They get to hide Goodell's salary now lol

I don't see anyone on here assuming anything is a slam dunk. I don't assume Stan would win. I just don't see much indicating the NFL could or would be willing to fight him any more than they did Georgia. But that could be wrong as well. I don't think financial resources are irrelevant here but I also don't think it is a huge key.

why are we even speculating about it? We've seen nothing that indicates Stan would even fight it - hell all we've heard is the opposite.

Not sure if it was a coincidence but the NFL and FCC both removed the blackout rule at the same time. The NFL would have had to have it in their contracts if it was an FCC requirement. If the FCC removes a requirement, it is simply a provision that both sides can decide not to enforce. I would guess that if the networks wanted the rule to be enforced, the NFL would certainly do so.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...-yank-nfl-legal-perks-over-blackouts-20141204

In September, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously repealed its regulations that supported the NFL's blackout policy. The rules, first adopted in 1975, prohibited cable and satellite TV providers from showing a sports event in an area if the game was blacked out on broadcast television stations.

But the FCC vote didn't necessarily end all NFL blackouts. The league can still use contractual provisions to force its games off of broadcast TV.

 

[iced]

Suit from who? The NFL gave approval for the team to get their own contract by excluding them.

the other 31 owners..

how are you gonna broadcast it? Who's going to broadcast it? They already have deals established with the NFL as it is; taking away their air time means money out of the owners pockets (since kroenke would have negotiated his own deal), and someone would be losing some revenue.

Here's an example: say the Packers are at the Rams - NFL/Packers have their own deal, Rams would have their separate one. Do you think the NFL is actually going to give up National air time and lose potential revenue streams to someone who's not negotiating with them? I doubt any Ram games would be aired on the LA Broadcast outside of their market if negotiated his own deal - Owners aren't going to give up their revenue stream so Kroenke can maximize his own

 

[The Ripper]

Twas how it was explained to me by the Old man - And they do still have franchise agreements but it's not in the context of how Ripper perceived it.

And the NFL changed its status remember? They get to hide Goodell's salary now lol



why are we even speculating about it? We've seen nothing that indicates Stan would even fight it - hell all we've heard is the opposite.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...-yank-nfl-legal-perks-over-blackouts-20141204

Teams do have different provisions but they are all based upon exceptions to the bylaws and they're all in resolutions to the bylaw. The NFL may call them franchises but the teams are not legally franchises. The contracts are all based on the Constitution and Bylaws. Plenty of law books out there that explain it.

There are just as many reports that say he will fight but it will be a situation like what happened with the Browns/Ravens. It will all be done behind closed doors. The only way that this ends up in court is if the NFL shows any type of favoritism to one of the teams.

 

[The Ripper]

the other 31 owners..

how are you gonna broadcast it? Who's going to broadcast it? They already have deals established with the NFL as it is; taking away their air time means money out of the owners pockets (since kroenke would have negotiated his own deal), and someone would be losing some revenue.

Here's an example: say the Packers are at the Rams - NFL/Packers have their own deal, Rams would have their separate one. Do you think the NFL is actually going to give up National air time and lose potential revenue streams to someone who's not negotiating with them? I doubt any Ram games would be aired on the LA Broadcast outside of their market if negotiated his own deal - Owners aren't going to give up their revenue stream so Kroenke can maximize his own

They can't because the NFL gave the team the permission to establish their own tv contracts by excluding them.

 

[iced]

They can't because the NFL gave the team the permission to establish their own tv contracts by excluding them.

You're missing what I am saying. Every game has two broadcasts - the home, and the visiting team, except for night games. They also have their own advertisers... And I can't see the NFL giving away free money or rather, air time to guy who doesn't want to negotiate with them, and whom would have blatantly gone against him.

 

[RamFan503]

the MLB doesn't negotiate their broadcast rights as one like the NFL does (which is why the NFL loves its antitrust set up).. Think about how many football games are aired on tv, and how many baseball games are... Now this past year, MLB broke $8 billion this past year in annual revenue for their first time. The NFL? $9 billion. think about that - think about how many less games are played, yet the NFL makes more money. This is exactly why they love their anti trust status, and why all of their franchises are worth so much. They make more money together than they will individually.

Who do you think negotiates MLB on Direct TV? Who negotiates the game of the week on ESPN? Of course the MLB negotiates as one and also negotiates individually in local and international markets with their own networks.

That's what I'm saying - the FCC could say whatever they want, but the NFL didn't have to get rid of it because it was in their contracts - the FCC couldn't touch them. That's why it took the Senators and congressmen to threaten them. Because it was written in, that was their "loophole" around the FCC.

No - the NFL couldn't do whatever they want. Their TV contracts are governed by the FCC. If there is an FCC requirement, it is completely different than there not being a requirement. If the FCC said that there could not be blackouts and that the parties must remove it from their contracts, the NFL would have had to strike it from their contracts. The FCC could have also, at that point, fined the NFL if they blacked out a game. All the FCC did however, was remove the requirement, allowing the NFL to also not enforce the blackout rule.

And the NFL changed its status remember? They get to hide Goodell's salary now lol

I suppose that's true. Still doesn't mean they have separate contracts with the clubs. I've never seen where they do. Can you point me to anything that indicates that?

why are we even speculating about it? We've seen nothing that indicates Stan would even fight it - hell all we've heard is the opposite.

Dunno.... Train wreck effect?

 

[The Ripper]

You're missing what I am saying. Every game has two broadcasts - the home, and the visiting team, except for night games. They also have their own advertisers... And I can't see the NFL giving away free money or rather, air time to guy who doesn't want to negotiate with them, and whom would have blatantly gone against him.

That's why the NFL won't take away shared revenue from a team. You said it's not the same but the NFL has official sponsors but the Cowboys have their own and they do conflict so it can work. It's not free money that they would be giving away, the NFL chose to exclude the team from the revenue streams forcing the team get their own contracts. The NFL would be in a tough position exert their power and block it which would make an anti trust case stronger for a rouge owner or just allow it which would reduce the NFL's power over the other owners and reduce the money they get from tv contracts.

 

[RamFan503]

Every game has two broadcasts - the home, and the visiting team, except for night games.

Do they? I thought there was only the one broadcast of each game. Isn't that why, for example, St Louis fans had to listen to Bernie's drunken tirade over having to watch Kellen play QB against Cleveland?

I still don't get what benefit a club would have to expand its regional market in your scenario. They have to have ways they can profit from expanding the airing of their own games.

 

[LesBaker]

@RamFan503 I did say what the "penalties" or whatever you want to call them are. I think you may have read a different interview or a truncated version of the one I read.

She was very clear.

According to Trask the NFL has the option to withhold revenue share money (last year that was 187MIL per team) and they can sue the fuck out of a team for moving without league approval because they have put the entire league and all owners on notice that the NFL owns the rights to the LA market and that the rights will be sold. So if an owner just moves there they will be sued up one side and down the other.

I thought I was pretty clear about spelling out what she said. And she was very clear in the article that the NFL made these changes to STOP owners from going rogue. Before they couldn't because there were no bylaws and so no punishment, now they can.

It's pretty simple, any owner that decides to move on his own to LA is going to get hammered by Roger Goodell and the NFL. So all the talk about "they can't stop him" is rubbish. 15 years ago that would have been true, but it isn't anymore. Kroenke is no dummy and he isn't going to do something that could interrupt and potentially permanently damage his investment and cost him that kind of cheddar.

 

[12intheBox]

So - do we all agree that when the NFL owners vote on this thing that the vote - however that vote goes - that the decision will be honored by all teams? Can we agree that no owner is going rogue?

Because if we can agree on that - then we are just arguing in circles about hypotheticals that don't really matter.

Not that a message board is ever 'productive' - thats not the point - but maybe we should be thinking of why the 29 other owners will vote the way that they will vote. Clearly, $$ will be the primary factor - but it seems to me that reasonable minds can disagree on what makes the most long term economic sense for the league to do here.

 

[RamFan503]

@RamFan503 I did say what the "penalties" or whatever you want to call them are. I think you may have read a different interview or a truncated version of the one I read.

She was very clear.

According to Trask the NFL has the option to withhold revenue share money (last year that was 187MIL per team) and they can sue the freak out of a team for moving without league approval because they have put the entire league and all owners on notice that the NFL owns the rights to the LA market and that the rights will be sold. So if an owner just moves there they will be sued up one side and down the other.

I thought I was pretty clear about spelling out what she said. And she was very clear in the article that the NFL made these changes to STOP owners from going rogue. Before they couldn't because there were no bylaws and so no punishment, now they can.

It's pretty simple, any owner that decides to move on his own to LA is going to get hammered by Roger Goodell and the NFL. So all the talk about "they can't stop him" is rubbish. 15 years ago that would have been true, but it isn't anymore. Kroenke is no dummy and he isn't going to do something that could interrupt and potentially permanently damage his investment and cost him that kind of cheddar.

No. She said what she thought they might do and what she thought they could do if some owner went rogue. Full of "they coulds" IIRR. She was very unclear actually as to what specific changes they have made. It is completely false that they had no bylaws or guidelines in place when the other teams moved. It is also false that they didn't threaten to sanction the Rams and Raiduhs if they moved against the rules stated in the bylaws.

The bylaws that were in existence before and after the moves are right here and just posted today. The idea that there weren't any in place at the time the Rams and Raiduhs moved is simply false.

Amy Trask is still a very good friend of the Davis family and a few of the minority owners. She didn't get into specifics as to what rules back up her assertions because there really aren't any. With the Raiduhs contemplating a move to LA and relying on that possible move for any leverage they may have in Oakland, do you really expect her to say, "Meh, Stan can move if he wants."?