New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[rick6fan]

The CVC was required to more throught the lease not just at the 20 year mark. The facility was required to be top tier at all times with measuring dates every 10 years. There were no major renovations done in 20 years as stated by the NFL in the Market Survey.

We're dealing with the NFL no mutually beneficial contracts with home markets.

That statement is contradictory, it only had to be top tier at the 10 year measuring points. At the first point the Rams and the CVC agreed to waive that requirement. At the second point the arbitration kicked in and the lease went year to year.

 

[rick6fan]

Exactly.


The CVC didn't do what was in the lease, what was in their power to keep the Rams bound to St. Louis. They chose not to.


Now they want the NFL to do what could've done themselves: keep the Rams from leaving.


The Rams are free to leave, according to the lease, because of what the CVC chose to do.


Now they want the NFL to do what they wouldn't?


I'm not sure how well that plays...

Ok, so you've got a car, and the car kinda runs and gets you to work most of the time. It's worth about $1,000. Then it breaks down. Needs engine and transmission, $2,500, New tires, $700. Do you throw $3,200 at it to keep your $1,000 car or do you cut bait, trade it in for $500 and buy a $3,700 car?


The CVC was faced with an impossible situation. They could not throw new stadium money at an old stadium and restrict convention revenue for a couple of years to end up with the same old stadium at the end. The Rams knew this and forced their hand. So, having said that, No the CVC does not want the NFL to do what they could have done themselves, they want the NFL to do what the CVC could not do. They have a reasonable expectation that the NFL will enforce its rules and require good faith effort. I don't know if they will, but the expectation is there.

 

[ChrisW]

Well, I was using blue font, not really making any argument or statement. But I believe the the point was that the NFL was supportive if we got our ducks lined up, not that it would be a game set and match. We realize that Stan needs to buy in. I do believe that this means that if we get our stuff lined out the NFL will push a little to keep St Louis as an NFL market, especially since it doesn't seem likely that the other two situations will be solved in their home markets. That's all.

To be honest my comment was more a touch of sarcasm. Lately it seems that any news or argument that seems to look good for ST Louis is raked over looking for flaws. Almost gleefully at times. Any statement resembling "this may be good" is guaranteed to get a multi paragraph response pointing out how very little is good for ST Louis.

At this point, I'm convinced that some people just participate in this thread just for the sake of the debate.

 

[The Ripper]

That statement is contradictory, it only had to be top tier at the 10 year measuring points. At the first point the Rams and the CVC agreed to waive that requirement. At the second point the arbitration kicked in and the lease went year to year.

Wrong, it's at all times with measuring dates at the 10 year marks. Not contradictory because the Rams at any point had the right to sue the CVC to force the repairs of any deficiencies or be allowed out of the lease. The Seahawks had the same provision in their lease and with the collapse of the roof and the risk of earthquakes, Behrens tried to get out of the lease but his problem was that King County agreed to the repairs and the earthquake safety claim wasn't credible.

 

[MrMotes]

Ok, so you've got a car, and the car kinda runs and gets you to work most of the time. It's worth about $1,000. Then it breaks down. Needs engine and transmission, $2,500, New tires, $700. Do you throw $3,200 at it to keep your $1,000 car or do you cut bait, trade it in for $500 and buy a $3,700 car?


The CVC was faced with an impossible situation. They could not throw new stadium money at an old stadium and restrict convention revenue for a couple of years to end up with the same old stadium at the end. The Rams knew this and forced their hand. So, having said that, No the CVC does not want the NFL to do what they could have done themselves, they want the NFL to do what the CVC could not do. They have a reasonable expectation that the NFL will enforce its rules and require good faith effort. I don't know if they will, but the expectation is there.

I understand why the CVC wanted out of the long term part of the lease. It was a bad deal for them. But the fact remains they didn't live up to the part of the lease that would've kept the Rams committed to St. Louis and now they're free agents.

So now the NFL is supposed to do what the CVC wouldn't?

I'm not sure how that flies with the NFL...

 

[ChrisW]

I understand why the CVC wanted out of the long term part of the lease. It was a bad deal for them. But the fact remains they didn't live up to the part of the lease that would've kept the Rams committed to St. Louis and now they're free agents.

So now the NFL is supposed to do what the CVC wouldn't?

I'm not sure how that flies with the NFL...

What is this thing you say the NFL is going to do?

 

[Big Willie]

Isn't time to move on from what we think the CVC could have/should have done and focus on the here and now? No one wins the blame game. Today's reality is that everything starts with acquiring the land and getting the stadium funding in place or the Rams will more. Get those in place and the Rams may or not may not move. Those are the facts we have come to accept. The NFL and the Rams controls everything after those steps are completed. I would rather be a NFL city with the Rams, than not, but the city/state still has a lot of work to do to get stay that way.

 

[rick6fan]

Wrong, it's at all times with measuring dates at the 10 year marks. Not contradictory because the Rams at any point had the right to sue the CVC to force the repairs of any deficiencies or be allowed out of the lease. The Seahawks had the same provision in their lease and with the collapse of the roof and the risk of earthquakes, Behrens tried to get out of the lease but his problem was that King County agreed to the repairs and the earthquake safety claim wasn't credible.

Did the Rams sue for repairs of deficiencies? Did the Rams sue to get out of the lease? Nope, they didn't. Therefore we must assume that the terms of the lease were met (or waived). The CVC and the Rams negotiated constantly over what improvements needed to be made. The CVC made the required improvements(new turf, new sound system, added luxury boxes, bigger screen, etc).

 

[rick6fan]

I understand why the CVC wanted out of the long term part of the lease. It was a bad deal for them. But the fact remains they didn't live up to the part of the lease that would've kept the Rams committed to St. Louis and now they're free agents.

So now the NFL is supposed to do what the CVC wouldn't?

I'm not sure how that flies with the NFL...

No, the NFL is supposed to enforce its rules. We'll see if they do. Even if they enforce them, the Rams may still move. If they do, so be it.

 

[MrMotes]

What is this thing you say the NFL is going to do?

Tell the Rams they can't leave St. Louis even thought their lease says they can...

 

[ChrisW]

Tell the Rams they can't leave St. Louis even thought their lease says they can...

Well the NFL can't say that. They can, however, impose financial restrictions on them if they don't follow the relocation guidelines.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Ok, so you've got a car, and the car kinda runs and gets you to work most of the time. It's worth about $1,000. Then it breaks down. Needs engine and transmission, $2,500, New tires, $700. Do you throw $3,200 at it to keep your $1,000 car or do you cut bait, trade it in for $500 and buy a $3,700 car?


The CVC was faced with an impossible situation. They could not throw new stadium money at an old stadium and restrict convention revenue for a couple of years to end up with the same old stadium at the end. The Rams knew this and forced their hand. So, having said that, No the CVC does not want the NFL to do what they could have done themselves, they want the NFL to do what the CVC could not do. They have a reasonable expectation that the NFL will enforce its rules and require good faith effort. I don't know if they will, but the expectation is there.

This is about as reasonable and logical an explanation of the probable reality that faced the CVC as any I have ever read.

Well done!

You see... it's easy to take the simplistic view that there was a clause and, because the CVC did not live up to it, they caused Kroenke to make the move he has made.

The probable reality was that they faced all the issues you outlined so well and really had no choice.

 

[The Ripper]

Did the Rams sue for repairs of deficiencies? Did the Rams sue to get out of the lease? Nope, they didn't. Therefore we must assume that the terms of the lease were met (or waived). The CVC and the Rams negotiated constantly over what improvements needed to be made. The CVC made the required improvements(new turf, new sound system, added luxury boxes, bigger screen, etc).

It was called maintenance not improvements. The only negotiations involved accepting the $ 30 million in maintenance for the amended lease.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I'm not sure how that flies with the NFL...

I'm not sure... maybe ask Robert Kraft?

 

[bluecoconuts]

At this point, I'm convinced that some people just participate in this thread just for the sake of the debate.

Ding ding ding

Did the Rams sue for repairs of deficiencies? Did the Rams sue to get out of the lease? Nope, they didn't. Therefore we must assume that the terms of the lease were met (or waived). The CVC and the Rams negotiated constantly over what improvements needed to be made. The CVC made the required improvements(new turf, new sound system, added luxury boxes, bigger screen, etc).

This doesn't make sense to me, are you saying because the Rams didn't do those things the CVC kept it in the top tier and it fell off suddenly in like 2 years? That isn't true, they let it slide in 2005 (the 10 year mark) but there was a lot to do. The CVC kept doing very minimal renovations instead of bigger ones, likely due to lack of funds, possibly due to lack of caring or understanding. Perhaps they felt Georgia would just wave it again, not expecting Stan to take over.

Either way, they could have done more previously, and the upgrades would have been significantly less. Why they didn't, who knows, but it wasn't top tier because they didn't keep it updated.

 

[Rmfnlt]

"They also talk about the anonymous letter from an NFL executive that Dan Sileo read on air Tuesday with John Gennaro. Was it written by Mark Fabiani? They seem to think so until Sileo joins them in studio and madness ensues."

From that, you write:

Sileo admits the letter came from Fabiani.

From there, you say:

He's doing exactly what Spanos wants.

I dunno... that seems like a lot of dot connecting where I can't see any dots.

Maybe I am missing something concrete.

 

[The Ripper]

"They also talk about the anonymous letter from an NFL executive that Dan Sileo read on air Tuesday with John Gennaro. Was it written by Mark Fabiani? They seem to think so until Sileo joins them in studio and madness ensues."

From that, you write:


From there, you say:


I dunno... that seems like a lot of dot connecting where I can't see any dots.

Maybe I am missing something concrete.

Concrete Sileo said that the letter came from the Chargers and he will say who at the Chargers he got it from tomorrow on his show. Fabiani's tactics aren't secret and Spanos knew exactly what he was getting when he retained Fabiani's services.

 

[RAMbler]

Ok, so you've got a car, and the car kinda runs and gets you to work most of the time. It's worth about $1,000. Then it breaks down. Needs engine and transmission, $2,500, New tires, $700. Do you throw $3,200 at it to keep your $1,000 car or do you cut bait, trade it in for $500 and buy a $3,700 car?

Nope. I can't buy this at all. Why? Cause you purposely left out the part about the warranty. What warranty you ask? The warranty that I insisted on when I moved my team... er.... bought this "kinda runs" car. The warranty that says if you don't keep it running within..., say..., the top 25% of cars on the road, that I can bring it back for a full refund, PLUS you gotta help me buy a better car from ANOTHER dealer. What's that...? That's a ridiculous promise you say?

Yup. I whole-heartedly agree.

 

[MrMotes]

Maybe I am missing something concrete.

Sileo has said it came from the Chargers. So we know it didn't come from the NFL. That much we know...

 

[MrMotes]

The probable reality was that they faced all the issues you outlined so well and really had no choice.

However you spin it, the Rams are now contractually free to relocate.

And the CVC is left hoping the NFL will do what they chose not to do: Force the Rams to stay in St. Louis