New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[8to12]

I don't see what your point is.

The reason the Dodgers, Lakers, and Angels contracts are so gaudy is because they have a captive audience for hundreds of games a year for advertising dollars. You can't DVR and fast forward the commercials.

You can justify paying so much when you have a captive audience for so many dates. A single NFL team isn't worth NEARLY as much to advertisers, I don't care if they play in LA. Directv pays a Billions dollars because they get 32 games, and dominate from noon central time until the end of the day. Their exclusivity all but forces out of market fans across the US to use Directv as their television provider all of those weeks that the NFL isn't playing. Sunday Ticket pays for itself not during football season, but rather all of the new contracts forced to continue to pay after the season is finished. Your scenario also doesn't account for lost games to Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football.

A single NFL team just doesn't provide enough hours to justify the type of dollars you are talking about.

I understand that there are many more games during baseball season. But, I am not sure I would agree that the value of advertising dollars for a baseball game on a Wed night in July comes any where close to the advertising dollars for a Football game on a Sunday in November, especially a CBS or Fox Network broadcast.

 

[blue4]

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.

If there's any truth whatsoever to the claim that SD has 25% of its sales in LA, then Spanos should definitely sue. Especially since it's seems to be such a slam dunk.

Seriously, all these arguments like restriction of trade and such would work just as well for Spanos. I would think restriction of trade would work much better for Spanos in that case then in any way for Stan. It's interesting to me that a lot of this thread has talked about how powerless Spanos is to get his way, yet Stan wins every which way. Spanos may not have the money Stan does, but he's got enough to hire a decent lawyer too.

Maybe it's just my natural pessimism, but does anyone else see the writing on the wall for the NFL as we know it IF these owners were to win these lawsuits? I don't want to watch a league like the MLB or NHL where MOST small market teams are dead before the season starts.

 

[The Ripper]

If there's any truth whatsoever to the claim that SD has 25% of its sales in LA, then Spanos should definitely sue. Especially since it's seems to be such a slam dunk.

Seriously, all these arguments like restriction of trade and such would work just as well for Spanos. I would think restriction of trade would work much better for Spanos in that case then in any way for Stan. It's interesting to me that a lot of this thread has talked about how powerless Spanos is to get his way, yet Stan wins every which way. Spanos may not have the money Stan does, but he's got enough to hire a decent lawyer too.

Maybe it's just my natural pessimism, but does anyone else see the writing on the wall for the NFL as we know it IF these owners were to win these lawsuits? I don't want to watch a league like the MLB or NHL where MOST small market teams are dead before the season starts.

It depends what he is suing for, if it's for being denied LA yes the same things apply but if it's to prevent another team from moving, that's different. It's not about hiring lawyers, it's about where he is going to play. He can't build a stadium on his own and there's not a permanent stadium that he could move into. His financing from Goldman would be gone if Spanos didn't have the support of the NFL.

 

[blue4]

It depends what he is suing for, if it's for being denied LA yes the same things apply but if it's to prevent another team from moving, that's different. It's not about hiring lawyers, it's about where he is going to play. He can't build a stadium on his own and there's not a permanent stadium that he could move into. His financing from Goldman would be gone if Spanos didn't have the support of the NFL.

That's exactly my point. We don't know what Goldman has agreed to do. It's just assumed. We also don't know how Stan's co investors view an unsanctioned move. Its just assumed. And of course, Spanos is not on his own. My point is if Stan wins and SD is denied LA, Spanos can sue using every thing you've talked about over the last dozen pages or so. But yet when we talk about SD, suddenly the legal rights evaporate and poor weak Dean has to crawl back to SD.

My point isn't to try to be right or to talk myself into believing the Rams stay. I've been pretty open that I don't know what's going to happen, and I've been pretty open that I think there's a good chance Stan gets to leave. My point is that there are a lot of inconsistency regarding Stan and his rights and Spanos/Davis and their rights. There's a lot of assumptions made about the solidity of Stan's legal prospects and the weaknesses of Spanos/Davis prospects, even though the situation in court would be exactly the same. The way some people talk around here I wouldn't be surprised to see Stan part the Mississippi.

 

[The Ripper]

That's exactly my point. We don't know what Goldman has agreed to do. It's just assumed. We also don't know how Stan's co investors view an unsanctioned move. Its just assumed. And of course, Spanos is not on his own. My point is if Stan wins and SD is denied LA, Spanos can sue using every thing you've talked about over the last dozen pages or so. But yet when we talk about SD, suddenly the legal rights evaporate and poor weak Dean has to crawl back to SD.

My point isn't to try to be right or to talk myself into believing the Rams stay. I've been pretty open that I don't know what's going to happen, and I've been pretty open that I think there's a good chance Stan gets to leave. My point is that there are a lot of inconsistency regarding Stan and his rights and Spanos/Davis and their rights. There's a lot of assumptions made about the solidity of Stan's legal prospects and the weaknesses of Spanos/Davis prospects, even though the situation in court would be exactly the same. The way some people talk around here I wouldn't be surprised to see Stan part the Mississippi.

I try not to say Kroenke when I am talking about anti trust but sometimes it comes out because of the question. All 3 owners have the same right to relocate but the issue is who has the ability to go through with it. A team going rouge needs to move immediately after the decision and have a secured site. The problem is timing for when a new stadium is ready. The temp sites have a limit for how long a NFL team can use the facility. Kroenke is better positioned because he has partner that also has the resources to build a stadium and their investors are the same ones that they use on other projects. The other advantage is the surrounding development and the additional income streams. Davis or Spanos would need a willing partner and Goldman wouldn't because of their ties to the NFL. It would be difficult if not impossible for 2 teams to go rouge at the same time so one of them would need a partner. If either one is committed then they have other possibilities for a minority owner to help build a stadium or join Kroenke if he moves. It's not that Davis or Spanos can't do it, just that they have more challenges.

I have no idea what's going to happen and couldn't even guess on a % because too much is unknown at this point about the revenue streams for the Riverfront Project so it can go either way at this point.

 

[Rmfnlt]

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.

Well written! Coudn't agree more.

I'll believe Trask over any reporter from L.A. (or St. Louis).

 

[Dieter the Brock]

View: https://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs

 

[Dieter the Brock]

best part of the John Oliver rant is when he rallies the Ram fans
hahahahahahaha

dudes in a Bradford jersey hahahhaah

 

[ChrisW]

If there's any truth whatsoever to the claim that SD has 25% of its sales in LA, then Spanos should definitely sue.

I would think this would be added into his share of the relocation fee. If Kroenke went rogue, then perhaps Spanos could sue him for cutting into his market, if he could prove that he gets that much business from the area.

 

[fearsomefour]

I would think this would be added into his share of the relocation fee. If Kroenke went rogue, then perhaps Spanos could sue him for cutting into his market, if he could prove that he gets that much business from the area.

Its funny.
I know the NFL and pro sports are very different than other businesses, but, most franchises have set territorial limits. It seems silly to me when the cities are 2 hours apart driving. Look at the situation in the bay area, New York, Florida with three teams. Silliness.

 

[ChrisW]

Its funny.
I know the NFL and pro sports are very different than other businesses, but, most franchises have set territorial limits. It seems silly to me when the cities are 2 hours apart driving. Look at the situation in the bay area, New York, Florida with three teams. Silliness.

Yea, I know that. But, I would think he'd have grounds to sue if he could prove lose of revenue due to another franchise relocating. Or, that the loss would be covered in the relocation fees.

On another note, do we have a map of the home territories? I know there's some language that exists, but it'd be cool to see it in graphical format.

 

[fearsomefour]

Yea, I know that. But, I would think he'd have grounds to sue if he could prove lose of revenue due to another franchise relocating. Or, that the loss would be covered in the relocation fees.

On another note, do we have a map of the home territories? I know there's some language that exists, but it'd be cool to see it in graphical format.

My understanding is it is just language....like a delivery territory will have specific guidelines ....the city border on the north and east and such and such a street on the west etc for example.
The thing that is different is, if I favor one sub sandwich joint and the closest is 4 miles away, then one opens half a block away, that owner that is 4 miles away is losing my business.
If I am a Chargers fan I am not suddenly becoming a Rams fan because it is a 45 min drive as opposed to a 2 hour drive. If the Bears moved to where I live I wouldn't cross the street to see them.
I understand the basis of his argument but it is non sense. The thing that ads some validity to his argument (the NFL franchises are unique) also helps nullify it.

 

[Irish]

I didn't think it would happen, but after watching Oliver's piece last night, I have made my peace with losing the Rams. If there is a public vote, I am voting no.

St. Louis deserves so much better than Stan Kroenke. If he can build it all himself in LA, let him. The city of Los Angeles deserves better than to sell it's fiscal soul to the devil also. I highly doubt Kroenke wouldn't be enjoying all kinds of tax breaks and the like, but whatever. He will be Inglewood's problem soon enough.

I guess I am the worst kind of fan, because losing the Rams means ending my relationship with this team and the league. Mizzou joining the SEC might be the best thing to happen to us from a professional football standpoint.

Peacock and Blitz's efforts are going to fall on deaf ears, or we are going to have to put up with the NFL equivalent of table scraps that is the Raiders. Either way, St. Louis deserves better than third place. We are a proud sports town with proud fans, but our city has other needs. The entertainment tax should be used to pay off the dome bonds, and then be done with it. Focus these efforts to make the North Riverfront beautiful and attract more young people to the urban core to rehabilitate the city. Elect public officials who will create a business friendly culture.

Man, this sucks. It feels like a break up, but its better to do it now than to wait before she starts seeing someone else. I am a football fan and an NFL fan, but I am a St. Louisan first. St. Louis deserves better.

 

[The Ripper]

Yea, I know that. But, I would think he'd have grounds to sue if he could prove lose of revenue due to another franchise relocating. Or, that the loss would be covered in the relocation fees.

On another note, do we have a map of the home territories? I know there's some language that exists, but it'd be cool to see it in graphical format.

The Chargers have no rights to the market so they don't have grounds. Also, the Rams tried that against the Raiders and that was for a move into the same market.

No real map for actual home markets just for tv coverage which is different. The Chargers home market extends up to OC and Riverside. They don't have an extended market just a secondary market North of San Diego County and that's only for tv broadcasts.

 

[fearsomefour]

The Chargers have no rights to the market so they don't have grounds. Also, the Rams tried that against the Raiders and that was for a move into the same market.

No real map for actual home markets just for tv coverage which is different. The Chargers home market extends up to OC and Riverside. They don't have an extended market just a secondary market North of San Diego County and that's only for tv broadcasts.

If my memory is correct (a shaky proposition at best) one of the reasons the Rams sued failed is the Raiders were in the AFC and the Rams in the NFC. While a tv viewer may not care it was deemed no direct competition. The same thing would apply to the Chargers of course. But, the city has 8 or 10 or whatever million people, more than enough to support two teams....or not support.
Good info with the tv coverage area extending to OC and Riverside. That sort of makes sense. As Georgia found out way back when OC and LA are different....at least to the people living there. The argument for exclusive rights in an area LA/OC with that population is silly.

 

[The Ripper]

I didn't think it would happen, but after watching Oliver's piece last night, I have made my peace with losing the Rams. If there is a public vote, I am voting no.

St. Louis deserves so much better than Stan Kroenke. If he can build it all himself in LA, let him. The city of Los Angeles deserves better than to sell it's fiscal soul to the devil also. I highly doubt Kroenke wouldn't be enjoying all kinds of tax breaks and the like, but whatever. He will be Inglewood's problem soon enough.

I guess I am the worst kind of fan, because losing the Rams means ending my relationship with this team and the league. Mizzou joining the SEC might be the best thing to happen to us from a professional football standpoint.

Peacock and Blitz's efforts are going to fall on deaf ears, or we are going to have to put up with the NFL equivalent of table scraps that is the Raiders. Either way, St. Louis deserves better than third place. We are a proud sports town with proud fans, but our city has other needs. The entertainment tax should be used to pay off the dome bonds, and then be done with it. Focus these efforts to make the North Riverfront beautiful and attract more young people to the urban core to rehabilitate the city. Elect public officials who will create a business friendly culture.

Man, this sucks. It feels like a break up, but its better to do it now than to wait before she starts seeing someone else. I am a football fan and an NFL fan, but I am a St. Louisan first. St. Louis deserves better.

Irish. Most of us didn't see Oliver's piece, if you have a link or the station it was on please share. I just assumed it was someone in St Louis not the guy on HBO

I know it's tough but for now nothing has changed, the team is called the St Louis Rams. This process is still far from being decided and it could go either way even if the funding is or isn't secured.

 

[Irish]

Irish. Most of us didn't see Oliver's piece, if you have a link or the station it was on please share. I just assumed it was someone in St Louis not the guy on HBO

I know it's tough but for now nothing has changed, the team is called the St Louis Rams. This process is still far from being decided and it could go either way even if the funding is or isn't secured.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs


That is the link.

And, yeah, you are right, it's not over, but it will be soon. False hope is worse than no hope.

 

[Legatron4]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs


That is the link.

And, yeah, you are right, it's not over, but it will be soon. False hope is worse than no hope.

Wow. That video made me realize how shitty these people really are. I actually think us fans are more knowledgable of the situation then they are. The NFL can move to fucking Australia for all I care.

 

[MrMotes]

And, yeah, you are right, it's not over, but it will be soon. False hope is worse than no hope.

Classic Irish fatalism. I think the Rams are probably moving but nothing is certain...

 

[Irish]

Classic Irish fatalism. I think the Rams are probably moving but nothing is certain...

The shitty part is I really believe this team is going to be good either this year or next. The fact that STL got to endure the worst football in recorded history just to watch the team enjoy success across the country is pretty bad.

Its like we dated the fat chick, paid for her gym membership, bought all of the healthy food for her to lose weight, paid for her plastic surgery, only to watch her run off with the surgeon because he has more money and he can give her a better standard of living.