New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

@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.

Yes, but withholding of revenue streams hold many more problems for the NFL than it does for an owner. The bylaw hasn't changed it's exactly the same and the relocation rules have been revised slightly. The old and new are both public The fines for revenues were in place for the Rams relocation. It's right in the 1996 congressional report. The main issue for the NFL is whether fighting to stop a team from relocating is worth the risk of losing an anti trust that could cost the league billions.

 

[LesBaker]

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.

Good post.

I also think that no owner is going rogue, it'll damage their rep, cost them tons of money and who knows what else in court.

Things are different in the NFL now, and Roger is a prickly dude when it comes to the shield.

Stadium negotiations are going to be VERY different once a team is in LA.

Long term I don't konw if that's good or bad. I dunno.

 

[The Ripper]

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."?

She does mention in multiple interviews that she has measured the distance in her from the Raiders facility to Levi and it's 42 miles.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

I think that is a good assumption. But we don't know so I can see why the arguing over the finer points. It's no big deal really. Think of it this way. If it happens, you'll have all kinds of useless information already in your brain so you won't have to research it.

 

[The Ripper]

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.

Good post.

I also think that no owner is going rogue, it'll damage their rep, cost them tons of money and who knows what else in court.

Things are different in the NFL now, and Roger is a prickly dude when it comes to the shield.

Stadium negotiations are going to be VERY different once a team is in LA.

Long term I don't konw if that's good or bad. I dunno.

There's a lot to say about Goodell but the one thing is that he's a great negotiator. There will be a deal done that makes the 3 owners satisfied. That doesn't mean that all 3 teams will be in LA or that any of them remain in their home markets but whatever it is it will be equitable.

 

[LesBaker]

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."?

She's on record recently that her opinion is that the Raiders are going to be the team that moves to LA. So I'm not sure how she gains.

She was pretty specific about what the NFL could do 503. It didn't read as if it was her opinion. And as the CEO of the team I am sure she was on the call and read the memo and understands the changes as well as anyone could.

Here is a slice of the article:
But as Trask said, with a chuckle, “It’s not like the olden days in that regard. The league really battened down the hatches to prevent teams from acting as rogue agents.”


Since that “relocation era,” the league has tweaked and added to its relocation policies. The league has also implemented financial penalties for teams that move without league approval.

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

(later in the article there is this)

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.


Linkage

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

IMO there isn't an owner in the NFL that is stupid enough to go rogue.

 

[LesBaker]

There's a lot to say about Goodell but the one thing is that he's a great negotiator. There will be a deal done that makes the 3 owners satisfied. That doesn't mean that all 3 teams will be in LA or that any of them remain in their home markets but whatever it is it will be equitable.

Well as I just mentioned ATrask thinks the Raiders are the team that's going to LA. The Chargers are 90 miles away so they seem to be "ahead" of the Rams going IMO too.

I tend to agree with you about Goodell and negotiating. He got involved in Indy and Minny and got shit done to everyone's satisfaction. I think he will do the same here with this situation.

 

[The Ripper]

She's on record recently that her opinion is that the Raiders are going to be the team that moves to LA. So I'm not sure how she gains.

She was pretty specific about what the NFL could do 503. It didn't read as if it was her opinion. And as the CEO of the team I am sure she was on the call and read the memo and understands the changes as well as anyone could.

Here is a slice of the article:
But as Trask said, with a chuckle, “It’s not like the olden days in that regard. The league really battened down the hatches to prevent teams from acting as rogue agents.”


Since that “relocation era,” the league has tweaked and added to its relocation policies. The league has also implemented financial penalties for teams that move without league approval.

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

(later in the article there is this)

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.


Linkage

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

IMO there isn't an owner in the NFL that is stupid enough to go rogue.

The term draconian can also be regarded as punitive which in itself would be a good start for an owner in an ant trust case. The NFL's would have to overcome multiple previous court decision if it decided to take on a rouge owner. The risk to them is even greater than for the owner. As stated the NFL was told in order to withstand judicial scrutiny the rules had to be objective which they are not. The penalties imposed on a rouge owner cause multiple issues for the league outside of a treble damage award in court.

 

[The Ripper]

Well as I just mentioned ATrask thinks the Raiders are the team that's going to LA. The Chargers are 90 miles away so they seem to be "ahead" of the Rams going IMO too.

I tend to agree with you about Goodell and negotiating. He got involved in Indy and Minny and got crap done to everyone's satisfaction. I think he will do the same here with this situation.

She has also said on SD radio that the Raiders will be in Levi.

 

[RamFan503]

She's on record recently that her opinion is that the Raiders are going to be the team that moves to LA. So I'm not sure how she gains.

She was pretty specific about what the NFL could do 503. It didn't read as if it was her opinion. And as the CEO of the team I am sure she was on the call and read the memo and understands the changes as well as anyone could.

Here is a slice of the article:
But as Trask said, with a chuckle, “It’s not like the olden days in that regard. The league really battened down the hatches to prevent teams from acting as rogue agents.”


Since that “relocation era,” the league has tweaked and added to its relocation policies. The league has also implemented financial penalties for teams that move without league approval.

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

(later in the article there is this)

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.


Linkage

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

IMO there isn't an owner in the NFL that is stupid enough to go rogue.

I read the same article. Still nothing specific from ANYONE. I'm not saying she is wrong either or that it would be a good idea for an owner to go rogue simply because the league voted him down. But if Stan is told no and also told to take the deal in St Louis and that deal is what he considers a bad investment, I wouldn't put it past him to threaten a suit. It would be then that we would see how confident is the NFL in their bylaws. I honestly don't think it will come to a team going rogue. But I don't think it will be prevented because the league somehow holds all the power in the negotiations either.

I also wouldn't put it past Spanos and Davis to sue the NFL if it awards the LA market to Stan. I'm thinking someone eventually gets sued over the LA market. Who that is - I don't know.

 

[LesBaker]

The term draconian can also be regarded as punitive which in itself would be a good start for an owner in an ant trust case. The NFL's would have to overcome multiple previous court decision if it decided to take on a rouge owner. The risk to them is even greater than for the owner. As stated the NFL was told in order to withstand judicial scrutiny the rules had to be objective which they are not. The penalties imposed on a rouge owner cause multiple issues for the league outside of a treble damage award in court.

I like you as a poster, and I think you've added a lot to this discussion but Trask is a legit insider so I'm going to believe that she is on the up and up and knows things well enough that it makes sense to pay attention to her.

I didn't know she said the Raiders will go play there. I'm not sure that's a good idea. In fact that would be bad..........

 

[LesBaker]

I read the same article. Still nothing specific from ANYONE. I'm not saying she is wrong either or that it would be a good idea for an owner to go rogue simply because the league voted him down. But if Stan is told no and also told to take the deal in St Louis and that deal is what he considers a bad investment, I wouldn't put it past him to threaten a suit. It would be then that we would see how confident is the NFL in their bylaws. I honestly don't think it will come to a team going rogue. But I don't think it will be prevented because the league somehow holds all the power in the negotiations either.

I also wouldn't put it past Spanos and Davis to sue the NFL if it awards the LA market to Stan. I'm thinking someone eventually gets sued over the LA market. Who that is - I don't know.

Well I can only then assume you are looking for the exact section and line item in the bylaw, frankly she was pretty direct about what she said. Just because she didn't quote it you think it doesn't exist?

Any lawsuit by Davis or Spanos (provided SK gets LA) will be quickly dismissed, neither of them have any right or claim to that market, it's owned and controlled by the NFL. They can sell it to you for a nickel if they want and nobody can do a thing about it.

If SK decides to sue because he can't go to LA that will get tossed just as fast.

I don't think anyone wants to fuck with Goodell, the NFL and the golden goose it is.......

 

[The Ripper]

I like you as a poster, and I think you've added a lot to this discussion but Trask is a legit insider so I'm going to believe that she is on the up and up and knows things well enough that it makes sense to pay attention to her.

I didn't know she said the Raiders will go play there. I'm not sure that's a good idea. In fact that would be bad..........

Amy Trask is defiantly a good source but I have heard her say different things on SD radio and in St Louis. It's probably the wording of the questions.

There was a question that was asked to Grubman, about the Raiders playing in Levi besides the NFL speak about the 49'ers keeping the 2 team stadium intact, Grubman asked temporarily or permanent, the host said permanently. I think the question should have been temporarily which is the real possibility. There are other options for the Raiders in Nor Cal.

 

[The Ripper]

Well I can only then assume you are looking for the exact section and line item in the bylaw, frankly she was pretty direct about what she said. Just because she didn't quote it you think it doesn't exist?

Any lawsuit by Davis or Spanos (provided SK gets LA) will be quickly dismissed, neither of them have any right or claim to that market, it's owned and controlled by the NFL. They can sell it to you for a nickel if they want and nobody can do a thing about it.

If SK decides to sue because he can't go to LA that will get tossed just as fast.

I don't think anyone wants to freak with Goodell, the NFL and the golden goose it is.......

No one owns the market including the NFL. Al Davis made that point when saying that the NFL couldn't own any market. At the time he was the #1 team in the market and the resolution only states the that the league controls the market only for the 2nd team. No one can say the suits will succeed or be thrown out until they file and the basis is known. If it's clear why the team or teams were picked then the 3rd teams suit probably thrown out but if concessions are made then there's an issue which potentially could cause a suit. The 3 teams involved here all need concessions in order to move. The other issue for the NFL is what if they allow 2 teams and the case goes to court and the 3rd team is allowed to move which could happen in a metro area of 18 million people. It's all a mess without a compromise.

 

[LesBaker]

No one owns the market including the NFL. Al Davis made that point when saying that the NFL couldn't own any market. At the time he was the #1 team in the market and the resolution only states the that the league controls the market only for the 2nd team. No one can say the suits will be thrown out or succeed until they file. If it's clear why the team or teams were picked then the 3rd teams suit probably thrown out but if concessions are made then there's an issue which potentially could cause a suit. The 3 teams involved here all need concessions in order to move. The other issue for the NFL is what if they allow 2 teams and the case goes to court and the 3rd team is allowed to move which could happen in a metro area of 18 million people. It's all a mess without a compromise.

I believe when Davis vacated the market he ceded the rights back to the NFL.

 

[Spike14]

You can Google and find a couple of interviews with Amy Trask, who was the CEO of the Raiders, gave about relocation and going rogue and some other details.

A little background on her............she was working as the Raiders attorney, and then later CEO, when they moved back to Oakland and was interning there as she was going to school right after they moved to LA. She knows more about this topic than anyone else I have read, including so called reporters who these days are no better than most posters. When Jerry Jones opened his mouth and puked out some serious misinformation some smart reporters got her on the phone and asked good questions. You can look around and find them.

Unfortunately the facts don't make for good conversation and won't drive clicks/readership so her remarks have largely been ignored while Jones (who is a dolt and knows little about the facts) is quoted as gospel.

A couple of things that are going to happen if someone decides to freak with the NFL and Goodell........

If a team just picks up and moves to LA without NFL approval they will get SLAUGHTERED by the the league. First they will have the freak sued out of them because the NFL owns that market and will have an open and shut case for damages from fees they didn't receive. If any owner was dumb enough to do that a first year law student could win the case. And the NFL could, if they so chose to do so, remove that team from scheduling and even revoke the franchise or suspend it.

Another VERY important thing she stressed that wasn't on the books back then that is now is that the NFL can withhold that teams share of revenues, so even if a team decided to go to court and fight a losing battle they would be losing out on millions of dollars every week.

An owner can no longer just walk away from a city like Georgia did and like Modell did and Davis and so on. In fact those owners doing that is what prompted the NFL to make changes in it's rules. If a city is making efforts to build a new stadium, using this case, and can secure funding and demonstrate that there is fan support they can't just leave for greener pastures. Davis (and Trask knows this) scared the crap out of the NFL because his lawyers knew that at the time there was nothing preventing them from moving anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to do so. And they did twice and they beat the NFL in court. A team could have moved every single year until the new rules were written and the NFL was worried that teams would start migrating and "test" other markets. That would upset the money machine and fans would stop watching in large numbers. So they rewrote the books.

Anyway, long story short. Unless the NFL allows a team to move there nobody is just going to LA, that's a myth that has been perpetuated on the web from people who are hopfull that SK will just pick up and go or people who are misinformed. If it was as easy to do as some would have you think then there would already be two teams in LA. Part of the reason I don't get into these discussions any more is most people don't have any idea about much of the facts. Like the whole "his team will triple in value" shtick that makes me chuckle.

Les,

I'm sorry. Your thought process is too rational. It won't hold water in the court of public opinion. There has to be a conspiracy theory in there somewhere!

 

[RamFan503]

Well I can only then assume you are looking for the exact section and line item in the bylaw, frankly she was pretty direct about what she said. Just because she didn't quote it you think it doesn't exist?

Not only that Amy doesn't cite it but that NOBODY has. So yeah - I question its existence. Call me skeptical but the NFL has not exactly been stepping true these days and has made numerous mistakes when it came to enforcement and positions taken. Sorry but I don't find their positions more powerful nor infallible than Stan or most of the other owners.

Any lawsuit by Davis or Spanos (provided SK gets LA) will be quickly dismissed, neither of them have any right or claim to that market, it's owned and controlled by the NFL. They can sell it to you for a nickel if they want and nobody can do a thing about it.

That has only been proven to be false and never proven to be true. Their guidelines actually specifically mention the 2nd team in LA. Tell me why that is. If you are not in a market, you cannot defend a claim to it. And even if the NFL tries to lay claim to the 2nd team in that market, they would likely be hard pressed to apply unreasonable fees or penalties if someone moves into it.

If SK decides to sue because he can't go to LA that will get tossed just as fast.

I don't think anyone wants to freak with Goodell, the NFL and the golden goose it is.......

I don't think any suit gets tossed quickly if any of the owners or the NFL go that route. Just not the way it works in something like this. And Goodell has had to backtrack and change tactics many times of late so I don't think he is operating from such a position of power as you want to believe. It would all come down to the legal strength of the bylaws, not how imposing is Goodell.

 

[LesBaker]

Les,

I'm sorry. Your thought process is too rational. It won't hold water in the court of public opinion. There has to be a conspiracy theory in there somewhere!

Well that's for damned sure!!!

 

[RamFan503]

Les,

I'm sorry. Your thought process is too rational. It won't hold water in the court of public opinion. There has to be a conspiracy theory in there somewhere!

@LesBaker - clearly he is new here.

 

[The Ripper]

I believe when Davis vacated the market he ceded the rights back to the NFL.

Davis's point was that the NFL doesn't have the authority to own any other market so how can it own LA. The other problem is the wording is it says for the 2nd team and wording is important when it comes to enforcement.