New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[OldSchool]

Very good point. For us in St. Louis, the commitment to keep a team in the area is head and shoulders above a winning product at this point, which is why Khan is revered around these parts. The perception here is that this mess wouldn't be going on if he were the owner. It may be false, but it is what it is. Don't get me wrong, we WANT this team to win, but keeping the team here is a much more important issue for us.

And everybody love ya for the wanting the team to win. What I'm pointing out with today's discussion on the salary cap is that Kroenke has earned the vitriol for the possible move we all know this. But too many people assign him the label of bad owner. Call him a jackhole for wanting to move your team. But he's done everything he can as an owner to put the Rams in position to win. He spends top dollar on front office people and coaching staff. Lets not forget they added 2 coaches this year to help the team that's more team salary for him to pay. He lets the team use the full salary cap, which I've pointed out despite the rules in place not every team does. Dislike him for the potential move, and don't forget it's potential it's not resolved yet if they move or not, but to label him a bad owner? No that doesn't fly, bad person sure but he does his job as an owner.

 

[Spike14]

And everybody love ya for the wanting the team to win. What I'm pointing out with today's discussion on the salary cap is that Kroenke has earned the vitriol for the possible move we all know this. But too many people assign him the label of bad owner. Call him a jackhole for wanting to move your team. But he's done everything he can as an owner to put the Rams in position to win. He spends top dollar on front office people and coaching staff. Lets not forget they added 2 coaches this year to help the team that's more team salary for him to pay. He lets the team use the full salary cap, which I've pointed out despite the rules in place not every team does. Dislike him for the potential move, and don't forget it's potential it's not resolved yet if they move or not, but to label him a bad owner? No that doesn't fly, bad person sure but he does his job as an owner.

Just my 2 cents worth on it......Let's make one distinction clear. I don't think too many folks have accused ESK of being a being a stingy owner. He spends his "jack" to the cap. He spends his "jack" on staff and management. Hell, I think Fisher is one of the highest paid HCs in the NFL. Obviously, the results on the field haven't been harvested, yet.

The question is whether or not he and his managers are operating a good football organization. Are they developing a stronger football organization that can compete and win consistently? The court is still in session on that one.

ESK has held majority ownership of the franchise for 5 years. Certainly, he inherited a team in an awful state of disrepair. They have improved on his watch......to a better state of mediocrity. I'm not certain that his model of delegation is that effective, so far. As an ardent fan, I'm also concerned that the man has so many diverse business interests and sports franchises, that he can't possibly oversee the nuances of their unique operations effectively. His major league teams have not had championship caliber success in recent years.

Since taking over the Nuggets in 2000, the team has finished mostly in the bottom 1/3 of the Western Conference. Occasionally in the middle of the pack. One 2nd place and one 3rd place finish. Knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st round each time they got in.

He purchased the Avs in 2000, also. That was a red hot team that he inherited and enjoyed success for the first 3-4 seasons. However, since that time, they've mostly slid downhill, aside from a 1st place finish in 2013-14. They failed to make the playoffs this past season.

ESK bought the majority of Arsenal shares in 2011. They were consistently 3rd or 4th in the Premier League before he took the majority. And, that's where they remain. They actually qualified for a major cup this season. Arsenal fans seem to bristle at his stewardship and his explanation of some their expenditures at last years' annual meeting.

He may not be a horrendous owner, but his other big league teams have only enjoyed modest success.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a more dedicated ownership group take the reins of the Rams eventually. Guess you have to be careful what you wish for, right?

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: Stadium project is a test of ethics for NFL
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_3b8ea26a-92f3-5b79-8d2b-da062b34b880.html

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and stadium task force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz gathered at the Four Seasons hotel Thursday for a meeting with NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman.

The discussion lasted four hours. I wasn’t able to place a secret listening device in the conference room to monitor the conversation, so there’s no way of knowing what was said.

Peacock was genuinely upbeat after the palaver with Grubman.

Well, of course he was, the cynics say.

What, did you expect Peacock to leave the meeting in a doom-and-gloom mood and declare his intentions to surrender?

Until Peacock gives me a reason to doubt his word, I won’t reject or ridicule his optimism. He feels good about all of this: the outcome of the lawsuits, the successful completion of the stadium financing, the final land purchases at the stadium site, and the NFL’s encouragement.

All I know is the NFL keeps coming to St. Louis for meetings, Nixon stays in contact with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and Peacock and Blitz remain unwavering in their belief that the NFL will treat the city fairly.

If you want to believe that this is all play acting, with the NFL executives and the STL leaders putting on a great show to convince a naive public of the legitimacy of process in an attempt to establish cover for the fallout to come, that’s really swell. Believe as you wish.

I also know a few other things:

The funding for the proposed $998 million stadium still isn’t finalized. The effort to complete the financing was slowed by two legal challenges. The rulings could come at any time. But until there’s a resolution — and clarification — uncertainty prevails.

I know the clock is running. As the Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders angle for an advantage in the race to Los Angeles, the NFL owners have scheduled a meeting for Aug. 11 in Chicago to discuss the LA sweepstakes. St. Louis doesn’t have to have everything in order by then, but the sooner the better.

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is set on building a football stadium, an entertainment complex and perhaps the world’s biggest Wal-Mart in the LA suburb of Inglewood. Yes, Enos Stanley really is determined to move the Rams. Which does not mean he will gain formal approval to do so.

I know that the owners of the Raiders and Chargers are attempting a double-team block on Kroenke by partnering on a proposed stadium to be situated 14 miles from Inglewood, in Carson.

The NFL will choose one of the two stadium projects. One or two teams (but not three) should be granted permission to move to LA after the 2015 season.

I know that all three franchises soon will be opening training camps in their home markets, with team executives feigning enthusiasm as demoralized fan bases brace for a potential farewell season. It’s a big mess.

I know that the presence of Rams executive Kevin Demoff at this week’s Four Seasons session means little. It isn’t a sign that Kroenke is coming around, will have a change of heart and suddenly declare his forever and ever loyalty to St. Louis and the great state of Missouri. Demoff was there because the league wanted the Rams to be represented.

There’s also a lot that I don’t know.

If St. Louis locks in the stadium funding, I don’t know how the NFL could abandon a city that did everything possible to keep its team. I’m not suggesting that the league has a firm conscience, but the NFL would have to be completely void of ethics to strip a team out of a city that’s set to build a second NFL stadium in fewer than 25 years.

I don’t know if the NFL relocation rules are for real — or the equivalent of kitty litter.

If the STL stadium plan becomes a financed reality, I don’t know how the NFL could possibly justify the following scenario: With three cities trying to prevent their NFL franchises from moving to LA, how could the league sign off on taking a team away from the ONLY market — St. Louis — that came up with a new stadium?

Think about that one for a moment.

All three cities face the same predicament, and all three cities have been issued the same challenge by the NFL: Build a stadium, or risk losing your team.

So far, only one of the three communities has responded in an aggressive, legitimate manner: St. Louis. There’s no traction for a stadium in Oakland. San Diego has tried to give the appearance of making a sincere effort to satisfy the Chargers’ long-standing desire for a new stadium, but the team isn’t taking it seriously.

Let me get this straight: The NFL threw down the gauntlet to three markets, with the requirement being a new stadium.

Two of the markets have done very little, or nothing at all.

One market is doing exactly what the NFL has asked.

And the one city that’s actually fulfilling the NFL’s stadium challenge could get dumped as the big loser in this game?

Meanwhile, the two cities that declined to take timely action (or none at all) on the stadium front, despite being confronted by an imminent threat of losing their NFL franchises … there’s a chance they’ll get to win this game and keep their teams?

Oakland’s current stadium opened in 1966. The current San Diego stadium opened in 1967. They’ve had plenty of time to modernize and upgrade with new stadiums that meet the NFL’s contemporary standards.

And yet, this could happen:

NFL to San Diego and Oakland: “Look, your outdated stadiums are a disgrace and ready for the wrecking ball, and you’ve taken no meaningful steps to solve the problem. But you can keep your NFL teams.”

NFL to St. Louis: “Look, we know you’ve come up with a second new stadium in less than a quarter century to appease the NFL. And in the history of this league, no city has ever made such a strong commitment. But here’s the deal — the Rams are gone. You lose. No team for you.”

C’mon now. Is this really possible?

Apparently so.

And no, the notorious gangster that just escaped from the Mexican prison — “El Chapo” — isn’t running the NFL.

The NFL continues to encourage Gov. Nixon, and Peacock and Bitz, to keep pushing and working to get the stadium finalized here. There aren’t any guarantees with this league, but the NFL has been sending an obvious message to the STL leadership: Get this stadium done, and everything will work out.

OK, but what if it doesn’t work out?

What if St. Louis lines everything up, just as the NFL wants, only to have the league choose Kroenke as the winner of the LA sweepstakes? Suppose the NFL decides that Kroenke’s stadium plan is too attractive to pass up, and allows the Rams to move?

This is the league’s big problem.

One that presents an enormous test of ethics.

How does the NFL manage to reward Kroenke but also take care of St. Louis? How does the NFL pat Kroenke on the back without stabbing the backs of Nixon, Peacock and Blitz?

 

[dbrooks25]

And everybody love ya for the wanting the team to win. What I'm pointing out with today's discussion on the salary cap is that Kroenke has earned the vitriol for the possible move we all know this. But too many people assign him the label of bad owner. Call him a jackhole for wanting to move your team. But he's done everything he can as an owner to put the Rams in position to win. He spends top dollar on front office people and coaching staff. Lets not forget they added 2 coaches this year to help the team that's more team salary for him to pay. He lets the team use the full salary cap, which I've pointed out despite the rules in place not every team does. Dislike him for the potential move, and don't forget it's potential it's not resolved yet if they move or not, but to label him a bad owner? No that doesn't fly, bad person sure but he does his job as an owner.

Hey, I never called him a bad owner. He's far from it, with the money he has invested. I'm just pointing out why Khan is liked around these parts.

 

[bluecoconuts]

All I know is that if it's a test of ethics, I wouldn't hold my breath on the NFL doing the right thing.


Also:

With three cities trying to prevent their NFL franchises from moving to LA, how could the league sign off on taking a team away from the ONLY market — St. Louis — that came up with a new stadium?

Easy, if the owner doesn't like and wont agree to the stadium, then there is no stadium deal. I understand the cities need to wow the NFL in hopes to keep the team, but it's very easy for the NFL to say "While the deal had promise, ultimately it wasn't a deal in the best interest for the league or Kroenke, so we couldn't agree to it." PR Spin or not, it's unlikely the vast majority of the NFL fanbase will bat an eye outside of St Louis/surrounding areas.

If they decide to let the Rams go, I expect them to use that as part of their reasoning when questioned. If the choice of "who to stab in the back" is between Kroenke or Peacock, then I hope that Nixon is ready to treat a knife wound. It'll take a lot more than worrying about ethics to convince them to go against a fellow owner in favor of a local task force.

 

[MrMotes]

All I know is that if it's a test of ethics, I wouldn't hold my breath on the NFL doing the right thing.

I was thinking the same thing. An appeal to the NFL's ethics feels a little last ditch to me...

 

[iced]

I was thinking the same thing. An appeal to the NFL's ethics feels a little last ditch to me...

I agree - but at the same time I can also easily see how that's going to affect future cities and owners when it comes new stadiums (particularly those in "smaller markets").."Setting a standard" if you will..

 

[blue4]

Just my 2 cents worth on it......Let's make one distinction clear. I don't think too many folks have accused ESK of being a being a stingy owner. He spends his "jack" to the cap. He spends his "jack" on staff and management. Hell, I think Fisher is one of the highest paid HCs in the NFL. Obviously, the results on the field haven't been harvested, yet.

The question is whether or not he and his managers are operating a good football organization. Are they developing a stronger football organization that can compete and win consistently? The court is still in session on that one.

ESK has held majority ownership of the franchise for 5 years. Certainly, he inherited a team in an awful state of disrepair. They have improved on his watch......to a better state of mediocrity. I'm not certain that his model of delegation is that effective, so far. As an ardent fan, I'm also concerned that the man has so many diverse business interests and sports franchises, that he can't possibly oversee the nuances of their unique operations effectively. His major league teams have not had championship caliber success in recent years.

Since taking over the Nuggets in 2000, the team has finished mostly in the bottom 1/3 of the Western Conference. Occasionally in the middle of the pack. One 2nd place and one 3rd place finish. Knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st round each time they got in.

He purchased the Avs in 2000, also. That was a red hot team that he inherited and enjoyed success for the first 3-4 seasons. However, since that time, they've mostly slid downhill, aside from a 1st place finish in 2013-14. They failed to make the playoffs this past season.

ESK bought the majority of Arsenal shares in 2011. They were consistently 3rd or 4th in the Premier League before he took the majority. And, that's where they remain. They actually qualified for a major cup this season. Arsenal fans seem to bristle at his stewardship and his explanation of some their expenditures at last years' annual meeting.

He may not be a horrendous owner, but his other big league teams have only enjoyed modest success.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a more dedicated ownership group take the reins of the Rams eventually. Guess you have to be careful what you wish for, right?

Exactly. That's why I've stayed out of this particular line of discussion. People seem eager to make excuses for an argument that wasn't made. At the end of the day his team's records are what they are.

 

[dieterbrock]

I agree - but at the same time I can also easily see how that's going to affect future cities and owners when it comes new stadiums (particularly those in "smaller markets").."Setting a standard" if you will..

I think that's a fans perspective but not really a factor. The Rams situation is incredibly unique. IMO any owner willing to fund his own stadium completely after the lease expires would be a threat to move a team regardless of how this plays out

 

[LesBaker]

It's actually probably like 1.02 billion but 998 sounds better but it doesn't matter as long as they get the money.

I predict it will come in at exactly 1.0194582 billion.

Or just slightly over...........

 

[bubbaramfan]

Ethics? Bernie writes "I don't know how the NFL could abandon a city that did everything possible to keep its team." Oh really? St. Louis and the CVC entered a contract to bring the Rams to St. Louis that they had no intention, and failed to keep. ETHICS. Arbitrator rules that the CVC must upgrade the dome, and CVC ignores that. ETHICS.
The NFL had to schedule the Ram' last two games of the season on the road because the CVC booked the dome for conventions, the last three years in a row. ETHICS.
Had they abided by the arbitrators ruling, and spent the 700 mil on upgrading the dome, then I would agree that they did everything they could to keep the Rams.
But they didn't. ETHICS.

 

[LesBaker]

Ethics? Bernie writes "I don't know how the NFL could abandon a city that did everything possible to keep its team." Oh really? St. Louis and the CVC entered a contract to bring the Rams to St. Louis that they had no intention, and failed to keep. ETHICS. Arbitrator rules that the CVC must upgrade the dome, and CVC ignores that. ETHICS.
The NFL had to schedule the Ram' last two games of the season on the road because the CVC booked the dome for conventions, the last three years in a row. ETHICS.
Had they abided by the arbitrators ruling, and spent the 700 mil on upgrading the dome, then I would agree that they did everything they could to keep the Rams.
But they didn't. ETHICS.

You've evidently missed a lot of what's happened because a lot of what you have just said here isn't true.

 

[bubbaramfan]

What isn't true? That St. Louis entered into a contract they knew they couldn't uphold? Or that a judge sided with Stan Kroenke and ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome, which they decided not to do?

 

[dbrooks25]

What isn't true? That St. Louis entered into a contract they knew they couldn't uphold? Or that a judge sided with Stan Kroenke and ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome, which they decided not to do?

Man, you can't quit beating that arbitration drum, can you? Oh, and btw, no judge ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome. Nitpicking? Yes, it is, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

St. Louis will have a viable stadium plan on the table and I doubt the NFL will look back at the arbitration in the EJD when making their decision on who will be in L.A. They could use the arb as an excuse that Stan negotiated in good faith, sure, but that's where the arb case will likely end. I know you're pro L.A., but damn. I see you're one of those types who can't be for L.A. without bashing Stl and their efforts.

 

[MrMotes]

We can argue semantics but the fact remains the CVC failed to do the things that would keep the Rams legally bound to St. Louis...

 

[8to12]

Man, you can't quit beating that arbitration drum, can you? Oh, and btw, no judge ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome. Nitpicking? Yes, it is, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

St. Louis will have a viable stadium plan on the table and I doubt the NFL will look back at the arbitration in the EJD when making their decision on who will be in L.A. They could use the arb as an excuse that Stan negotiated in good faith, sure, but that's where the arb case will likely end. I know you're pro L.A., but damn. I see you're one of those types who can't be for L.A. without bashing Stl and their efforts.

He's not bashing St Louis. He's just stating that Bernie is wrong. St Louis (CVC) did NOT do all it could to keep the Rams. Had the CVC done all it could, Kroenke would still be tied to the 30 year lease.
Also, how convenient that Bernie didn't give any of the details of the Chargers vs San Diego situation. All he said was that the Chargers don;t like what the City had to offer. By that logic, Kroenke should be able to relocate to LA is he doesn't like what St Louis is offering.

 

[iced]

He's not bashing St Louis. He's just stating that Bernie is wrong. St Louis (CVC) did NOT do all it could to keep the Rams. Had the CVC done all it could, Kroenke would still be tied to the 30 year lease.
Also, how convenient that Bernie didn't give any of the details of the Chargers vs San Diego situation. All he said was that the Chargers don;t like what the City had to offer. By that logic, Kroenke should be able to relocate to LA is he doesn't like what St Louis is offering.

Because it's a proposal full of holes, and something the NFL has not been keen on from the get go - hell half an hour before it was released to the public it was said "It would not be received well among the NFL", and seeing the details of the plan, I can easily see why. just because one creates a proposal, doesn't make it viable. There's also the time factor in play here. *Note: viable is defined as land and financing secure; meets the design approval of the NFL. Not dependent on if an owner "likes it or not" , as has been commonly assumed.

If Chargers can't move because of that joke of a proposal, no way in hell Kroenke should be allowed to leave.

The CVC and Kroenke couldn't come to an agreement - that much we know. The biggest issue was shutting down the dome for a year (city took issue with the other events that had been scheduled). Both the CVC and Kroenke made unrealistic proposals that neither one would take.

And I sincerely doubt the NFL is going to look back at the arbitration and use that as some requirement as whether or not they can leave when they have, by then hopefully, a viable stadium proposal on the table (And the only city out of 3 who will have one as it looks right now)

 

[The Ripper]

Because it's a proposal full of holes, and something the NFL has not been keen on from the get go - hell half an hour before it was released to the public it was said "It would not be received well among the NFL", and seeing the details of the plan, I can easily see why. just because one creates a proposal, doesn't make it viable. There's also the time factor in play here. *Note: viable is defined as land and financing secure; meets the design approval of the NFL. Not dependent on if an owner "likes it or not" , as has been commonly assumed.

Wow Wow Wow and so is the Riverfront proposal. The reason it hasn't been picked apart is because Kroenke isn't talking. The rest of the first paragraph applies to St Louis too. The other thing you forgot to mention which is something that needs to be certain and is more important the teams revenues.

If Chargers can't move because of that joke of a proposal, no way in hell Kroenke should be allowed to leave.

That proposal has more public money and they have the land.

The CVC and Kroenke couldn't come to an agreement - that much we know. The biggest issue was shutting down the dome for a year (city took issue with the other events that had been scheduled). Both the CVC and Kroenke made unrealistic proposals that neither one would take.

Not unrealistic. Really it complied with the first tier standard, which was the only requirement for the lease. The CVC's proposal also would have closed the Dome for a year so that argument doesn't hold water.

And I sincerely doubt the NFL is going to look back at the arbitration and use that as some requirement as whether or not they can leave when they have, by then hopefully, a viable stadium proposal on the table (And the only city out of 3 who will have one as it looks right now)

Of course they will. Plenty of other teams have similar requirements in their leases and the NFL would be invalidating those leases too. Also if the NFL had issues with the terms of the lease then they would have changed them in 2007 to remove the Rams right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and the right to relocate from the Dome.

 

[iced]

Wow Wow Wow and so is the Riverfront proposal. The reason it hasn't been picked apart is because Kroenke isn't talking. The rest of the first paragraph applies to St Louis too.

Or negotiating? For

The only thing you can say about the Riverfront right now is the court issues - that's it. And numerous times I have said that is up in the air

That proposal has more public money and they have the land.

With contingencies - for example, having quoting the $225 million they believe they can sell some of the land at without a buyer, which is a guess at its best. Who picks up the tab if they don't get a buyer at their price or at all? That is not the definition of having financing secure.

(And that's not even getting into other issues such as rent)

Not unrealistic. Really it complied with the first tier standard, which was the only requirement for the lease. The CVC's proposal also would have closed the Dome for a year so that argument doesn't hold water.

Kroenke knew the CVC would never take such a high deal...It wasn't realistic. He made a huge offer to trigger the clause in the lease and got it. The CVC's offer wasn't realistic either - I'm not a fan of how that situation played out but I don't think either were truly interested in upgrading the dome.

Of course they will. Plenty of other teams have similar requirements in their leases and the NFL would be invalidating those leases too. Also if the NFL had issues with the terms of the lease then they would have changed them in 2007 to remove the Rams right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and the right to relocate from the Dome.

I have a hard time believing the NFL has been working with the city for so long and encouraging Peacock and Blitz just to say "Nope they're leaving", especially again, with them having the only viable stadium come december (assuming Peacock and Blitz get everything wrapped).

 

[RamFan503]

ESK bought the majority of Arsenal shares in 2011. They were consistently 3rd or 4th in the Premier League before he took the majority. And, that's where they remain. They actually qualified for a major cup this season. Arsenal fans seem to bristle at his stewardship and his explanation of some their expenditures at last years' annual meeting.

Didn't Arsenal just win the FA Cup for the second consecutive year?

Exactly. That's why I've stayed out of this particular line of discussion. People seem eager to make excuses for an argument that wasn't made. At the end of the day his team's records are what they are.

And that would make many an NFL owner a "bad owner". But then again, Arsenal wins the last two FA Cups - the last one in a 4-0 blow out. I suppose that doesn't count?

And I sincerely doubt the NFL is going to look back at the arbitration and use that as some requirement as whether or not they can leave when they have, by then hopefully, a viable stadium proposal on the table (And the only city out of 3 who will have one as it looks right now)

Why not? Seriously. If the stadium they propose starts out day one being below top tier (not sure it will or not) and the CVC/Stadium Authority failed to keep up with the provision in their last lease, what in the heck tells the NFL that this new Riverfront Stadium will be maintained at a high level compared to other stadiums?

You can't just say, "Oh well, it's new so it's great." The stadium needs to be a top flight stadium and I have little doubt they will use the top tier requirement the CVC ducked out of as a measuring stick. It would have to be a major factor in determining future revenue, ability to maintain an NFL level facility, whether an NFL owner would have to fight the Stadium Authority every time the stadium needed repairs or upgrades.

Any proposal will also have to meet financing approval that looks at revenue streams, ROI to the owner, etc... Bernie wants to suggest that if Peacock gets HIS version of a workable stadium proposal put together then it would be unethical for the NFL to allow the Rams to move. It's just not the case and I would wager Peacock knows this as well. All this talk of remaining an NFL city has to come with a realization that without the Rams, the city/state is picking up the whole tab in hopes of or exchange for getting an NFL team to occupy the new stadium. I suspect they will still need to sweeten the post beyond the level of public funding they are actually proposing.

Not unrealistic. Really it complied with the first tier standard, which was the only requirement for the lease. The CVC's proposal also would have closed the Dome for a year so that argument doesn't hold water.