New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

A spokesman for Ameren, which has power lines running through the site and a substation taking up a block, declined to comment.

This work might come through my office. While I don't work in the PDS division, we do work for Ameren all the time.

 

[RamFan503]

I just know that these days they value keeping the franchise in the existing city. Moving isn't something that can happen willy-nilly. It HAS to be a last ditch option.

For whom? I don't want them to move either. But I just don't see anything that backs up the assertion that they (the NFL) have done anything that tangibly makes it more difficult to move. It just sounds like more Goodell blathering and chest pumping. "We're there for you St Louis." No you're not GoodHell. No you're not.

 

[RamFan503]

This work might come through my office. While I don't work in the PDS division, we do work for Ameren all the time.

And didn't the spokesman from Ameren already say it was doable in an interview right after the St Louis proposal was unveiled? It's probably in this thread.

 

[ChrisW]

For whom? I don't want them to move either. But I just don't see anything that backs up the assertion that they (the NFL) have done anything that tangibly makes it more difficult to move. It just sounds like more Goodell blathering and chest pumping. "We're there for you St Louis." No you're not GoodHell. No you're not.

I only mean that to move Kroenke has to do stuff by the book. He's not going to be allowed to just pick up and leave as he sees fit. It's on the NFL's timeline, not his.

They have said multiple times that any move would come down to one or more votes. That's the by-laws kicking in.

 

[RamFan503]

I only mean that to move Kroenke has to do stuff by the book. He's not going to be allowed to just pick up and leave as he sees fit. It's on the NFL's timeline, not his.

They have said multiple times that any move would come down to one or more votes. That's the by-laws kicking in.

No man. I get that. But the bylaws kicked in when Georgia moved the team 20 years ago and Modell moved his team and Davis moved the Raiduhs. The NFL tried to pull that then and it didn't work. They keep claiming that they have tightened the requirements but I honestly can't find anything real and substantive that backs that up. Them just saying Stan will need league approval doesn't make it so. I'm sure they would want teams and fans to believe that but that doesn't mean anything in reality.

So what specifically have they done to make it so? Maybe they have. But I can't find it.

 

[Boffo97]

I only mean that to move Kroenke has to do stuff by the book. He's not going to be allowed to just pick up and leave as he sees fit. It's on the NFL's timeline, not his.

They have said multiple times that any move would come down to one or more votes. That's the by-laws kicking in.

But you're assuming that the by-laws will be enforced. And there's just not a good track record for that.

If it came down to the NFL saying no, I would bet almost anything that Stan would do what he wants anyway, and the NFL would either let him, or be sued and lose. Florio did make a good point in saying 31 businesses trying to tell 1 business what to do is the definition of an anti-trust violation.

The by-laws are not worth the paper they're printed on, and will not be an obstacle here.

 

[ChrisW]

But you're assuming that the by-laws will be enforced. And there's just not a good track record for that.

If it came down to the NFL saying no, I would bet almost anything that Stan would do what he wants anyway, and the NFL would either let him, or be sued and lose. Florio did make a good point in saying 31 businesses trying to tell 1 business what to do is the definition of an anti-trust violation.

The by-laws are not worth the paper they're printed on, and will not be an obstacle here.

What's the most recent move we have? It was Seattle wasn't it? What happened when he tried to move to Los Angeles? They fined him like 500k a day until he moved back.

 

[RamFan503]

What's the most recent move we have? It was Seattle wasn't it? What happened when he tried to move to Los Angeles? They fined him like 500k a day until he moved back.

And then he sold the team to Paul Allen. Kind of a weak owner which Stan is not. I also don't think they followed through with actually fining him. I believe they just threatened it and he caved.

 

[Boffo97]

What's the most recent move we have? It was Seattle wasn't it? What happened when he tried to move to Los Angeles? They fined him like 500k a day until he moved back.

After a quick check on that, at least going by Wikipedia's article on it, there was also the major difference that Seattle was still locked into a lease with the Kingdome that the owner at the time tried to fraudulently break. That's not the case here. And it never went to court.

Just a few years previously, Davis sued the league over attempting to block a move and won.

 

[ChrisW]

And then he sold the team to Paul Allen. Kind of a weak owner which Stan is not. I also don't think they followed through with actually fining him. I believe they just threatened it and he caved.

After a quick check on that, at least going by Wikipedia's article on it, there was also the major difference that Seattle was still locked into a lease with the Kingdome that the owner at the time tried to fraudulently break. That's not the case here. And it never went to court.

Just a few years previously, Davis sued the league over attempting to block a move and won.

I'm looking for the relocation by-law changes. I'll let you know if I find it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

What's the most recent move we have? It was Seattle wasn't it? What happened when he tried to move to Los Angeles? They fined him like 500k a day until he moved back.

Not really the same situation though, they were locked into a lease, and he tried to make up some reason about earth quakes or something when there was no scientific evidence to support that. He moved the operations even though he still had another 10 years in his lease, and thus had to move back. My guess is the NFL was far more worried about the potential lawsuit for breaking a lease than anything else, and I think that's the rub and why they would just go ahead and vote "Yes" for Stan moving if/when he puts it up for a vote. They don't want to risk him suing, and while he may say he's not going to sue, there's not a chance a dude puts up 1.7 Billion dollars and then allows the NFL to say no. By saying he's not going to "go rouge" is probably more him saying he wont need to. They'll just go ahead and vote "Yes" because it gives them what they want, and avoids what they don't want. So St Louis either needs to work on changing his mind, not appease the NFL, unless their goal is to let him go and attract another team there to replace them.

 

[Boffo97]

Not really the same situation though, they were locked into a lease, and he tried to make up some reason about earth quakes or something when there was no scientific evidence to support that. He moved the operations even though he still had another 10 years in his lease, and thus had to move back. My guess is the NFL was far more worried about the potential lawsuit for breaking a lease than anything else, and I think that's the rub and why they would just go ahead and vote "Yes" for Stan moving if/when he puts it up for a vote. They don't want to risk him suing, and while he may say he's not going to sue, there's not a chance a dude puts up 1.7 Billion dollars and then allows the NFL to say no. By saying he's not going to "go rouge" is probably more him saying he wont need to. They'll just go ahead and vote "Yes" because it gives them what they want, and avoids what they don't want. So St Louis either needs to work on changing his mind, not appease the NFL, unless their goal is to let him go and attract another team there to replace them.

Absolutely this, especially the last sentence.

If St. Louis is relying on the bylaws to save them, they're going to be sitting in an empty stadium saying "But... but... the bylaws!" Kroenke is already in violation of the cross-ownership bylaws with only a handwave of justification, and a whole lot of nothing is happening in response. Goodell has an extremely established record of caring more about perceived integrity of the NFL rather than actual integrity. I don't think he's going to risk an embarrassing lawsuit in order to protect the rules.

 

[ChrisW]

Absolutely this, especially the last sentence.

If St. Louis is relying on the bylaws to save them, they're going to be sitting in an empty stadium saying "But... but... the bylaws!" Kroenke is already in violation of the cross-ownership bylaws with only a handwave of justification, and a whole lot of nothing is happening in response. Goodell has an extremely established record of caring more about perceived integrity of the NFL rather than actual integrity. I don't think he's going to risk an embarrassing lawsuit in order to protect the rules.

Can you point me to a link that says Stan is still in Violation of these cross-ownership laws? I haven't heard anything from the league on this.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Can you point me to a link that says Stan is still in Violation of these cross-ownership laws? I haven't heard anything from the league on this.

Last I heard he had to got an extension to formally move the teams to his son's name, but I haven't heard of him actually doing it yet.

 

[ChrisW]

Not really the same situation though, they were locked into a lease, and he tried to make up some reason about earth quakes or something when there was no scientific evidence to support that. He moved the operations even though he still had another 10 years in his lease, and thus had to move back. My guess is the NFL was far more worried about the potential lawsuit for breaking a lease than anything else, and I think that's the rub and why they would just go ahead and vote "Yes" for Stan moving if/when he puts it up for a vote. They don't want to risk him suing, and while he may say he's not going to sue, there's not a chance a dude puts up 1.7 Billion dollars and then allows the NFL to say no. By saying he's not going to "go rouge" is probably more him saying he wont need to. They'll just go ahead and vote "Yes" because it gives them what they want, and avoids what they don't want. So St Louis either needs to work on changing his mind, not appease the NFL, unless their goal is to let him go and attract another team there to replace them.

I had forgotten about the lease.

Also, has any team ever been allowed to move while their host city was still moving forward with a plan for a brand spanking new stadium? I really don't think anyone has. If St. Louis is fighting to keep this team, don't you think they might bring up a lawsuit if Stan just up and left without satisfying the relocation laws? I don't even know if that's possible considering they aren't locked into the city beyond a year by year lease at this point.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm looking for the relocation by-law changes. I'll let you know if I find it.

Maybe someone else has the complete source or a better source but this one had more than most places I've looked.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/148181325.html

 

[Boffo97]

Can you point me to a link that says Stan is still in Violation of these cross-ownership laws? I haven't heard anything from the league on this.

Last I heard he had to got an extension to formally move the teams to his son's name, but I haven't heard of him actually doing it yet.

This, plus honestly I don't think many people believe that Stan has divested himself from these teams (or intends to do so) in anything but appearance.

With that kind of precedent, he could do something really silly like keep an office in St. Louis, otherwise move the team, and call them the "St. Louis Rams of Inglewood" (or of Los Angeles) until the legalities are all evened out.

But I have to think Peacock & Blitz, and anyone else behind the effort to keep the team are going in assuming that the bylaws won't be enforced. You almost have to. If they assume they won't be enforced and they are, it's a pleasant surprise. If they assume the bylaws will be enforced and they're not, they've lost this game before it begins.

 

[RamFan503]

Can you point me to a link that says Stan is still in Violation of these cross-ownership laws? I haven't heard anything from the league on this.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos...tension-transfer-ownership-avs-nuggets/30136/

 

[ChrisW]

This, plus honestly I don't think many people believe that Stan has divested himself from these teams (or intends to do so) in anything but appearance.

With that kind of precedent, he could do something really silly like keep an office in St. Louis, otherwise move the team, and call them the "St. Louis Rams of Inglewood" (or of Los Angeles) until the legalities are all evened out.

But I have to think Peacock & Blitz, and anyone else behind the effort to keep the team are going in assuming that the bylaws won't be enforced. You almost have to. If they assume they won't be enforced and they are, it's a pleasant surprise. If they assume the bylaws will be enforced and they're not, they've lost this game before it begins.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know why you'd think anything else when the league has said all long that it will come down to multiple votes before any team can move. Nothing is going to be done out of bounds on this. Now whether or not the league gives Stan latitude on the "exhaust all negotiations" part is yet to be seen.

 

[RamFan503]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know why you'd think anything else when the league has said all long that it will come down to multiple votes before any team can move. Nothing is going to be done out of bounds on this. Now whether or not the league gives Stan latitude on the "exhaust all negotiations" part is yet to be seen.

Maybe you're right but this is where I'm going with this. I'd like someone to tell me what has changed in the bylaws that gives the league actual teeth if it were to tell an owner he couldn't move his team. I don't see it when I read through the bylaws and read about what took place in the 90s. Hell - I'll admit it. I got my doctorate at Google U but I haven't found anything said by the league, Peacock, or in their bylaws that convinces me that they could actually win if challenged. In fact, the only thing I see is people saying they really don't have the teeth to stop a move, only disapprove of one.