New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[LesBaker]

That was a pic of the Power Rangers since champ said you have POWER.

One wears blue and white.

 

[Young Ram]

Sorry but I don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.

Also I highly doubt Kronke wants his team playing in a stadium he doesn't own.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/07/nixon-no-shake-down-to-keep-rams-in-town/Sorry but I just don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.



ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – If the Los Angeles stadium deal announced by Stan Kroenke is an attempt to get Missouri to pony up for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis, it’s not going to work. Brian Kelly reports that’s the indication from Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.

After issuing a statement Monday saying he’s committed to keeping St. Louis an NFL city, Nixon made it clear Tuesday that his commitment has its limits.

Making his first public comments since the Ingelwood stadium deal was announced, Nixon told Kansas City’s KCTV that “nobody is going to shake down Missouri.”

However, he is not backing away from his desire to get a new stadium built.

“There are great advantages to having both the luster of an NFL franchise, as well as the public facilities that can be used for many types of other things,” he said.

Meanwhile, Missouri Legislative leaders say there is no appetite in Jefferson City for raising taxes to build a football stadium in St. Louis.

The task force working on a new stadium plan is scheduled to issue its report to Nixon on Friday.

 

[LetsGoRams]

Sorry but I don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.

Also I highly doubt Kronke wants his team playing in a stadium he doesn't own.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/07/nixon-no-shake-down-to-keep-rams-in-town/Sorry but I just don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.



ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – If the Los Angeles stadium deal announced by Stan Kroenke is an attempt to get Missouri to pony up for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis, it’s not going to work. Brian Kelly reports that’s the indication from Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.

After issuing a statement Monday saying he’s committed to keeping St. Louis an NFL city, Nixon made it clear Tuesday that his commitment has its limits.

Making his first public comments since the Ingelwood stadium deal was announced, Nixon told Kansas City’s KCTV that “nobody is going to shake down Missouri.”

However, he is not backing away from his desire to get a new stadium built.

“There are great advantages to having both the luster of an NFL franchise, as well as the public facilities that can be used for many types of other things,” he said.

Meanwhile, Missouri Legislative leaders say there is no appetite in Jefferson City for raising taxes to build a football stadium in St. Louis.

The task force working on a new stadium plan is scheduled to issue its report to Nixon on Friday.

Let me remind you that Jay Nixon is a politician.

 

[nighttrain]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Kroenke-the-Rams-and-the-NFL-in-St-Louis.aspx
Latest Thoughts on Stan Kroenke, the Rams and the NFL in St. Louis
Shane Gray posted on January 08, 2015 11:12
By now, most everyone is aware of Sam Farmer's Los Angeles Times report that broke the news of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke's plans to team up with Stockbridge Capital Group to construct an NFL stadium and multifaceted development at Hollywood Park -- a location that has been rumored as a potential league venue site since the mid 1990s.

As Farmer points out, there have been more than a dozen L.A. area stadium proposals that have come and gone over the last 20 years. Will the aforementioned Kroenke plan, however, finally be the one that goes from conceptualization to reality and ultimately bring the NFL back to L.A.? At this point at least, the answer to that question would appear to be a yes.

With that said, I would like to touch on a multitude of topics in response to the prospective Kroenke/Stockbridge Capital Group stadium development:

-As I have pointed out previously, there has never been a team relocate with a state of the art venue plan approved in its current market, even prior to the introduction of the NFL's relocation guidelines and certainly not since they were tweaked and tightened following the moving mayhem that took place in the 1990s. When considering how the NFL controls the L.A. market, that specific league guidelines are in place related to potential relocation and the above-mentioned historical precedence that no team has moved with an approved stadium plan in place at home, local fans have reason to maintain hopes of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

-In spite of the thinking of a vast many observers, the Rams future is a long way from being decided.


(Happy new year, first of all, to ROD -- the best board around. Hope you enjoy the new read. Lots more via the full read below with new info/thoughts):

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15973/Latest-Thoughts-on-Stan-Kroenke-the-Rams-and-the-NFL-in-St-Louis.aspx[/QUOTE]

Have always enjoyed your writing and the topics you pursue, Los Angeles or St Louis makes no difference to me, live in neither, though I do like the starting times of games played in St Louis vs. LA (live in Iowa, though raised in LA)
write on
train

 

[LetsGoRams]

Well, you could certainly be right... depends on how emotional STL Rams fans get and how far they are willing to take their emotions.

Would a large percentage sell their tickets?
Would they stop tuning in on Sundays?
Would they stop buying merchandise?

Nobody knows right now... but, depending on how bitter things get, it's possible. I think people, as a general rule, don't like being played like chess pieces.

Like Shane said, damage? Yes
Irrepairable? No.

You think Stan Kroenke gives a rat's ass what people think of him? All he cares about is scoring the best deal. Period. And if something is worked out in St. Louis, it's not going to be Kroenke who will have to be doing the damage control - it will be Demoff and his lieutenants. They will be tasked to put the spin on it saying something to the tune, "It was our goal to remain in St. Louis the whole time", and stuff like that....

 

[Boffo97]

In all seriousness (a relative rarity for me), I am glad this topic was opened for discussion. I think the vast majority of us Rams fans here are respectful enough of our fellow fans to not turn this into a (family friendly mode on) willy waving contest between the two cities. And if there is a minority who can't help themselves from doing so, I hope they're escorted out rather than ruin things for everyone by causing this thread to be closed.

As said before, I've got nothing but respect for St. Louis. If I want to hate another city just because it's a competitor, that's what San Francisco, Seattle and Foxboro are for. And there's been some great fans both out of the _________ Rams fans ranks, and out of the St. Louis _________s fans ranks. My biggest regret if what I think will happen happens is that we'll lose a lot of great fans and Rams brothers from this community.

But at this point, I'm pretty sure we're going to see the Los Angeles Rams exist again sometime soon. Frankly, Goodell's statements aside, I haven't even ruled out seeing such in 2015.

My reasons:

1. Simple economics: Again, nothing against St. Louis, but common sense tells us a franchise in Los Angeles is going to be worth a lot more than a franchise in St. Louis (and indeed the Rams appear near the bottom of rankings of franchise value.)

2. It's the end of the season, and St. Louis is just NOW presenting a plan: St. Louis has known that this issue was coming for 10 years. The Dome couldn't meet the "first tier" requirement in 2005, and the Rams waived it at that time. At least since the team was sold to Kroenke, there should have frankly been an offer in place LAST offseason if they wanted to avoid this.

3. "No new taxes!": Missouri's Governor Nixon's pledge that taxes aren't going to be raised for a new stadium is going to make any competing plan to build a stadium really tough. One has to assume the Rams would be uninterested in contributing to the project. Meanwhile, a tax free plan that Stan DOES want to contribute to is in place in L.A.

π. "Somebody poisoned the water hole!": If I were a St. Louis fan (even though I'm certainly not pretending I necessarily speak for any of them), even if this whole thing turns out with the Rams getting a new stadium AND seemingly completely locked into it for decades to come, I'd be very leery of supporting a team where the owner made such a public move saying he wants to move away from the city.

33 1/3. Stan has a plan: I don't think anything Stan's doing here is by accident. This is insanely far to go for a "leverage" move and I don't think he would have taken things this far unless he knew he was going to get to make a move. And in saying this, I think he also has a plan for all the hurdles some have said would absolutely be in the way of a move.

47. The expansion pipedream: Some people have suggested scenarios where St. Louis gets an expansion team or Kroenke sells the Rams and is set up for an L.A. expansion team, but the current number of teams in the NFL is perfect... the schedules pretty much generate themselves. And I think the NFL is not going to want to mess that up for a while to come.

In conclusion, I think what St. Louis is doing now is a lot more about wanting to tell the people of St. Louis "See? We *tried* to keep the team here." than actually keeping the team there.

 

[nighttrain]

Sorry but I don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.

Also I highly doubt Kronke wants his team playing in a stadium he doesn't own.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/07/nixon-no-shake-down-to-keep-rams-in-town/Sorry but I just don't buy this leverage drum everyone keeps banging.



ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – If the Los Angeles stadium deal announced by Stan Kroenke is an attempt to get Missouri to pony up for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis, it’s not going to work. Brian Kelly reports that’s the indication from Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.

After issuing a statement Monday saying he’s committed to keeping St. Louis an NFL city, Nixon made it clear Tuesday that his commitment has its limits.

Making his first public comments since the Ingelwood stadium deal was announced, Nixon told Kansas City’s KCTV that “nobody is going to shake down Missouri.”

However, he is not backing away from his desire to get a new stadium built.

“There are great advantages to having both the luster of an NFL franchise, as well as the public facilities that can be used for many types of other things,” he said.

Meanwhile, Missouri Legislative leaders say there is no appetite in Jefferson City for raising taxes to build a football stadium in St. Louis.

The task force working on a new stadium plan is scheduled to issue its report to Nixon on Friday.

[After issuing a statement Monday saying he’s committed to keeping St. Louis an NFL city, Nixon made it clear Tuesday that his commitment has its limits.]

says is all, St Louis is not going to pony up the cash to upgrade current St Louis stadium, on to Los Angeles
train

 

[Rmfnlt]

Peacock and Blitz make their pitch to Nixon at noon.

 

[Irish]

You cannot move a team just to make more money.

You cannot move a team until all good faith negotiations are exhausted (see San Diego, Minnesota).

You cannot move a team unless 24 of 31 owners vote to approve the move.

These bylaws don't exist to protect small markets, believe me. These bylaws don't exist to stand up for the little guy. These bylaws exist to keep the NFL in the good graces of the Federal Government. You know what is worth more to Roger Goodell and the NFL owners than the precious money they make? Antitrust status. The bylaws were written specifically to avoid the government poking its nose in the leagues business. The second the NFL loses its antitrust status, the league changes forever. It's why the NFL takes cross ownership rules so seriously as well, an area where Stan is woefully deficient.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

This is not a small issue, folks. This is huge.

 

[woofwoofmo]

How's this for the ultimate nightmare scenario for the NFL:

1. Rams are on the verge of being a really good team, capable of making the playoffs.
2. Next year Rams go 11-5 / 12-4 and win the West
3. Rams advance to and win the NFC Championship game
4. Rams win the Super Bowl

The NFL now has a Super Bowl champion that could be on the verge of leaving it's current city.
Would make for some interesting conversations/marketing problems/explanations/etc. in the league offices.

Just sayin' there's a lot of twists and turns this road is going to take before it all plays out.

:eek:

 

[Boffo97]

You cannot move a team just to make more money.

You cannot move a team until all good faith negotiations are exhausted (see San Diego, Minnesota).

You cannot move a team unless 24 of 31 owners vote to approve the move.

These bylaws don't exist to protect small markets, believe me. These bylaws don't exist to stand up for the little guy. These bylaws exist to keep the NFL in the good graces of the Federal Government. You know what is worth more to Roger Goodell and the NFL owners than the precious money they make? Antitrust status. The bylaws were written specifically to avoid the government poking its nose in the leagues business. The second the NFL loses its antitrust status, the league changes forever. It's why the NFL takes cross ownership rules so seriously as well, an area where Stan is woefully deficient.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

This is not a small issue, folks. This is huge.

Just a small point here... who decides whether or not negotiations are still in good faith?

I could definitely see a scenario where St. Louis insists they are, and the Rams insist they're just dragging the process out.

And getting 23 of 31 remaining teams to agree with the move (Remember, the Rams themselves are one of the 24) is doable, especially if those teams will make more money from league revenue in the long run.

 

[ChrisW]

You cannot move a team just to make more money.

You cannot move a team until all good faith negotiations are exhausted (see San Diego, Minnesota).

You cannot move a team unless 24 of 31 owners vote to approve the move.

These bylaws don't exist to protect small markets, believe me. These bylaws don't exist to stand up for the little guy. These bylaws exist to keep the NFL in the good graces of the Federal Government. You know what is worth more to Roger Goodell and the NFL owners than the precious money they make? Antitrust status. The bylaws were written specifically to avoid the government poking its nose in the leagues business. The second the NFL loses its antitrust status, the league changes forever. It's why the NFL takes cross ownership rules so seriously as well, an area where Stan is woefully deficient.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

This is not a small issue, folks. This is huge.

Yea, this issue is going to be in the forefront if things keep going the way they are. What's the last straw that's going to break the camel's back?

Also, I liken Goodell to John Boehner. They both talk big, but have no balls to stand up for what they say.

 

[ChrisW]

Just a small point here... who decides whether or not negotiations are still in good faith?

I could definitely see a scenario where St. Louis insists they are, and the Rams insist they're just dragging the process out.

And getting 23 of 31 remaining teams to agree with the move (Remember, the Rams themselves are one of the 24) is doable, especially if those teams will make more money from league revenue in the long run.

Consider this. Why do you think STL put it out there in the news that Kroenke isn't speaking with anyone in Missouri? The good faith rule slapped me in the face when I read that.

 

[Stranger]

You cannot move a team just to make more money.

You cannot move a team until all good faith negotiations are exhausted (see San Diego, Minnesota).

You cannot move a team unless 24 of 31 owners vote to approve the move.

These bylaws don't exist to protect small markets, believe me. These bylaws don't exist to stand up for the little guy. These bylaws exist to keep the NFL in the good graces of the Federal Government. You know what is worth more to Roger Goodell and the NFL owners than the precious money they make? Antitrust status. The bylaws were written specifically to avoid the government poking its nose in the leagues business. The second the NFL loses its antitrust status, the league changes forever. It's why the NFL takes cross ownership rules so seriously as well, an area where Stan is woefully deficient.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

This is not a small issue, folks. This is huge.

The NFL's antitrust status benefits the NFL & it's owners at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Boffo97]

Consider this. Why do you think STL put it out there in the news that Kroenke isn't speaking with anyone in Missouri? The good faith rule slapped me in the face when I read that.

And if I were Kroenke (and said anything, of course), my response would be "When they actually make a proposal worth my time, I'll answer their phone calls."

Honestly, if St. Louis does make a deal out of the good faith thing, it's going to come across more like trying to drag out the process more than anything else. But if the Rams clearly do want to leave, what does St. Louis gain by keeping a lame duck team?

 

[ChrisW]

And if I were Kroenke (and said anything, of course), my response would be "When they actually make a proposal worth my time, I'll answer their phone calls."

Honestly, if St. Louis does make a deal out of the good faith thing, it's going to come across more like trying to drag out the process more than anything else. But if the Rams clearly do want to leave, what does St. Louis gain by keeping a lame duck team?

The exact purpose of the good faith clause is to drag out the process. It is there to help exhaust all options.

 

[Irish]

Just a small point here... who decides whether or not negotiations are still in good faith?

I could definitely see a scenario where St. Louis insists they are, and the Rams insist they're just dragging the process out.

And getting 23 of 31 remaining teams to agree with the move (Remember, the Rams themselves are one of the 24) is doable, especially if those teams will make more money from league revenue in the long run.

That will be decided in a courtroom, if it comes to that.

Believe me when I say this: the cavalier cowboy days of Bob Irsay packing up a moving van in the dead of night and leaving simply because he wants to are over, its in the past. Forget the court of public opinion for a second, the NFL is in serious trouble with the GOVERNMENT over the handling of the domestic abuse scandals. The power brokers in the NFL know that if they don't keep the Government at an arms length, their party is over. The Party that the Krafts, Joneses, Rooneys, Johnsons, and Bidwells have been enjoying for the past 15-20 years would be over in an instant. You think these guys would honestly risk this bubble of autonomy over a petulant man child like Kroenke throwing his weight around?

Kroenke's complete disregard for procedure and protocol is a cyanide capsule for the league, and the real power brokers know that.

I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that the NFL could force Stan out and force him to sell rather than lose their antitrust status. that is how serious this could be.

 

[ChrisW]

Anyone know where (or if) we can live stream the conference today? I'm looking, but to no avail so far.

 

[Boffo97]

BTW, the linked article above on the antitrust regulation states nothing about the good faith rule re: a team moving (which I think works a lot better in theory than it will in practice) being tied to the anti-trust regulations.

 

[Dodgersrf]

In all seriousness (a relative rarity for me), I am glad this topic was opened for discussion. I think the vast majority of us Rams fans here are respectful enough of our fellow fans to not turn this into a (family friendly mode on) willy waving contest between the two cities. And if there is a minority who can't help themselves from doing so, I hope they're escorted out rather than ruin things for everyone by causing this thread to be closed.

As said before, I've got nothing but respect for St. Louis. If I want to hate another city just because it's a competitor, that's what San Francisco, Seattle and Foxboro are for. And there's been some great fans both out of the _________ Rams fans ranks, and out of the St. Louis _________s fans ranks. My biggest regret if what I think will happen happens is that we'll lose a lot of great fans and Rams brothers from this community.

But at this point, I'm pretty sure we're going to see the Los Angeles Rams exist again sometime soon. Frankly, Goodell's statements aside, I haven't even ruled out seeing such in 2015.

My reasons:

1. Simple economics: Again, nothing against St. Louis, but common sense tells us a franchise in Los Angeles is going to be worth a lot more than a franchise in St. Louis (and indeed the Rams appear near the bottom of rankings of franchise value.)

2. It's the end of the season, and St. Louis is just NOW presenting a plan: St. Louis has known that this issue was coming for 10 years. The Dome couldn't meet the "first tier" requirement in 2005, and the Rams waived it at that time. At least since the team was sold to Kroenke, there should have frankly been an offer in place LAST offseason if they wanted to avoid this.

3. "No new taxes!": Missouri's Governor Nixon's pledge that taxes aren't going to be raised for a new stadium is going to make any competing plan to build a stadium really tough. One has to assume the Rams would be uninterested in contributing to the project. Meanwhile, a tax free plan that Stan DOES want to contribute to is in place in L.A.

π. "Somebody poisoned the water hole!": If I were a St. Louis fan (even though I'm certainly not pretending I necessarily speak for any of them), even if this whole thing turns out with the Rams getting a new stadium AND seemingly completely locked into it for decades to come, I'd be very leery of supporting a team where the owner made such a public move saying he wants to move away from the city.

33 1/3. Stan has a plan: I don't think anything Stan's doing here is by accident. This is insanely far to go for a "leverage" move and I don't think he would have taken things this far unless he knew he was going to get to make a move. And in saying this, I think he also has a plan for all the hurdles some have said would absolutely be in the way of a move.

47. The expansion pipedream: Some people have suggested scenarios where St. Louis gets an expansion team or Kroenke sells the Rams and is set up for an L.A. expansion team, but the current number of teams in the NFL is perfect... the schedules pretty much generate themselves. And I think the NFL is not going to want to mess that up for a while to come.

In conclusion, I think what St. Louis is doing now is a lot more about wanting to tell the people of St. Louis "See? We *tried* to keep the team here." than actually keeping the team there.

One thing to add Boffo.
The January 28th deadline to sign the 2015 lease is soon approaching. As far as I know, the Rams haven't signed that lease yet.