New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Boffo97]

I'm not sure why Ray Rice beating his wife caught the ire of congress. But, once the elevator thing happened, there was some in congress calling it into question. The fact is, they are on a fine line with their status at this point. If they keep letting things be done without enforcing their rules, it's going to get a lot harder for the NFL to keep their exemption.

There is a distinct difference though between a guy hitting his girlfriend and a team wanting to move, you have to admit.

I definitely could see Stan handcuffed to St. Louis despite wanting to be in LA. I think it's extremely short-sighted to believe he can move whenever he pleases without a vote. I think the way Stan has played this, is exactly how a genius real estate billionaire would play this. He's covering all his bases (or building in redundancies, if you will) to get the best possible deal for his franchise.

Fair enough. I disagree, but we'll see how this plays out.

 

[ChrisW]

There is a distinct difference though between a guy hitting his girlfriend and a team wanting to move, you have to admit.

Oh for sure there's a difference. I just wanted to get the point across about how close the NFL is to losing it's exemption.

 

[Boffo97]

Oh for sure there's a difference. I just wanted to get the point across about how close the NFL is to losing it's exemption.

Oh, I agree there's always going to be fear on the NFL's part of losing that exemption. I just don't think allowing the Rams to move would endanger it (no matter how creatively the bylaws get interpreted) and trying to stop them would.

But, I don't think it's going to come to that anyway.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The owners need to take into consideration the can of worms they open if they let him leave while his host city is pursuing a stadium on such a fast tracked timeline. There's going to be a press conference today on land acquisition, and if they've gotten past that hurdle, the next is financing. If the governor wants it done, he can grease the wheels of the general assembly if it comes to that.

I think it's important to remember that above all else, the league looks out for itself. St. Louis has been touted as an important market. If they plow ahead and just move while a deal is moving ahead, it'll damage the integrity of the league in this market. Let's also not forget that even after the Ray Rice scandal, the tax free status of the league was called into question by some of those in the government. If they keep breaking their own rules, they are going to lose it.

It just seems like you and @Boffo97 are so sure that a move is going to happen. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I'm not going to accept that until St. Louis hits a major roadblock in their proposal.

Again though, it's not just that you make a proposal, if the other side doesn't like it, you can't force them into it. If you and I are trying to work out a deal, and I say "Here's this pencil, 500 dollars" you're just going to laugh and say no. So if I come back and say "Well you're supposed to try to make a deal, so you have to buy it." are you going to buy it? No, you're going to say no, and leave. While the proposal has many good things, there were obviously things he didn't like, so he's not obligated to just take the deal. The Rams will make that argument, the deal wasn't good enough for them, there's questions on if it would be in the top stadiums in the league even after being new.

The league does look out for itself, which is why I think there's problems, because the league wants a team in LA, and Stan certainly does that, when nobody else seems to be able to do. Law makers aren't going to take away tax free status over this either, LA has their own representatives as well anyway, that's not going to happen.

It's not so much that I am sure a move is going to happen, but rather I'm pretty sure not enough is being done to keep the Rams. It looks like the general attitude is "This is what we're making, tough shit, we're doing it, and we hope the league forces you into staying here." which doesn't seem smart. The only way their actions seem smart is if the thought it "We know you're going to leave, and this is all lip service, but we're going to focus on the next team, and work with the NFL to keep us as a viable option, so over the next few years as we hammer this out, we'll have a new team by the time our new stadium opens up."

It's just my take, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I don't think the NFL will block Stan, and I don't think Stan is planning on accepting the proposal.

 

[RamFan503]

Am I missing something here or does this signify that the rules have already been broken?

If "multiple approvals" apply to the selection of a stadium site, then the rules have already been ignored by Kroenke.

1] The site has been established
2] No vote by the owners has taken place regarding that site selection

Isn't that a violation?

Discuss...

I'm kind of paraphrasing but if you read through the bylaws it says that teams are free to discuss leases and stadiums with outside markets but that the league is to have final decision authority.

 

[Thordaddy]

St. Louis' plan to keep the Rams is a $400 million mistake

Updated by Joseph Stromberg on February 10, 2015, 10:22 a.m.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7525143/rams-stadium

To put all this in context: the Rams are a for-profit business, and a very profitable one. They don't open their books, but one NFL team (the publicly-owned Green Bay Packers) does, and they generally make between $25 and $50 million a year.
.

Which using the price the Bills went for equals a ROI of 1.5 to 3% NOT "very profitable,mind you the Packers have played in that stadium forever so their profit does not reflect enormous stadium costs and sort of flies in the face of the charge "greedy owners".

I'd venture to say of all of Stans holdings the Rams were it not for appreciation might be his worst performing investment

 

[RamBill]

Power lines, railroad, to move for new stadium, Nixon says
• By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_c4a62de4-3621-5ea7-8f05-d7e29fd3d203.html

ST. LOUIS • Utility companies have agreed to move power lines and railroad tracks to accommodate a new downtown football stadium, Gov. Jay Nixon announced today, leaping a significant hurdle in the effort to cobble together land on the north riverfront.

At a press conference outside of the towering Union Electric Light and Power Co. building, Nixon applauded the “concrete progress” represented by these early agreements, and also chided naysayers.

The north riverfront, he said, has “vexed economic development for decades.”

“If we do nothing, 10 years from now that will look exactly as it looks now,” he said, pointing at an overgrown lot across the street. “This is our chance.”

Ameren Corp. Chairman and CEO Warner Baxter said the utility has agreed to relocate power lines and transmission towers, but that the substation at the western edge of the site would stay.

Terminal Railroad Association President Mike McCarthy promised to be a “reliable and energetic partner.”

“I don’t think we’re going to be the fly in the ointment,” McCarthy said after the press conference. He said the company would have to move about 4,000 feet of track, and that the board, made up of five railroads, would have to vote on the move and accompanying real estate exchange.

Nixon put the costs at $20 million to move the electric utilities and $3 million to move the railroad. Railroad executives later said the costs, while preliminary, looked to be more like $5 million.

All emphasized that nothing would happen until the National Football League and a team owner have agreed to help fund at least $400 million in construction. Relocation costs are included in the stadium’s overall price tag, which planners estimate could rise to as much as $985 million, and will be paid by the effort, not by the utilities.

Several in attendance on Tuesday emphasized how important these initial quickly

“That is not creeping,” said Doug Woodruff, president of Downtown STL, who is helping secure land for the project. No developer in the region would be able to nail down such agreements in 30 days, he said. “That is lightning speed.”

 

[blue4]

Again though, it's not just that you make a proposal, if the other side doesn't like it, you can't force them into it. If you and I are trying to work out a deal, and I say "Here's this pencil, 500 dollars" you're just going to laugh and say no. So if I come back and say "Well you're supposed to try to make a deal, so you have to buy it." are you going to buy it? No, you're going to say no, and leave. While the proposal has many good things, there were obviously things he didn't like, so he's not obligated to just take the deal. The Rams will make that argument, the deal wasn't good enough for them, there's questions on if it would be in the top stadiums in the league even after being new.

The league does look out for itself, which is why I think there's problems, because the league wants a team in LA, and Stan certainly does that, when nobody else seems to be able to do. Law makers aren't going to take away tax free status over this either, LA has their own representatives as well anyway, that's not going to happen.

It's not so much that I am sure a move is going to happen, but rather I'm pretty sure not enough is being done to keep the Rams. It looks like the general attitude is "This is what we're making, tough crap, we're doing it, and we hope the league forces you into staying here." which doesn't seem smart. The only way their actions seem smart is if the thought it "We know you're going to leave, and this is all lip service, but we're going to focus on the next team, and work with the NFL to keep us as a viable option, so over the next few years as we hammer this out, we'll have a new team by the time our new stadium opens up."

It's just my take, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I don't think the NFL will block Stan, and I don't think Stan is planning on accepting the proposal.

I would completely agree if we were talking about a paper mill or another business, but we're not. These are nowhere close to real businesses. Real businesses have things like competition and so on. While I don't know how the future will play out I don't think it will be as easy as you make it sound if St Louis continues to move forward as it has today.

LA's representatives are outnumbered. A political party that doesn't seem to like anything about California controls both chambers of Congress. And they absolutely despise your top California representative. That's not a knock on anyone, as I happen to think those guys are bat shit crazy, but just that I would expect no help in that arena.

If Stan is determined to leave, then what exactly would be "enough done to keep the Rams?" Myself I would have already been talking to other teams along with the NFL.

 

[JCK363]

I don't see how letting Kroenke slide on these particular bylaws COULD be a violation of anti-trust. An individual business owner would be doing what he wants to do with his own business. That's not the behavior of a trust.

I'll readily admit I'm no expert on these things, but these guys aren't just owners of an independent business, like a family owned restaurant. They actually own a franchise, which is subject to the rules and regulations of the parent entity. To keep with he restaurant theme, the owner of a Subway franchise is required to follow the Subway Corporation's menu, decorating, etc. They would also need permission from the Corporation regarding where a franchise owner wanted to set up their store.

 

[Boffo97]

I'll readily admit I'm no expert on these things, but these guys aren't just owners of an independent business, like a family owned restaurant. They actually own a franchise, which is subject to the rules and regulations of the parent entity. To keep with he restaurant theme, the owner of a Subway franchise is required to follow the Subway Corporation's menu, decorating, etc. They would also need permission from the Corporation regarding where a franchise owner wanted to set up their store.

But using that argument is what would set up an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL by Stan, because if the individual teams are just franchises, then the NFL is a monopoly.

Plus, it's hard to imagine Subway being too upset about an owner wanting to move their store as long as the new store isn't trashy looking.

 

[blue4]

But using that argument is what would set up an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL by Stan, because if the individual teams are just franchises, then the NFL is a monopoly.

Plus, it's hard to imagine Subway being too upset about an owner wanting to move their store as long as the new store isn't trashy looking.

Unless it would damage a perfectly good market by moving.

 

[Boffo97]

Unless it would damage a perfectly good market by moving.

This really doesn't seem relevant to the Subway analogy at all.

As far as the NFL is concerned, I would think (if I were them) that the Rams moving would fix the L.A. market (the #2 market in the country) and if the St. Louis market was still desired (especially if St. Louis still has a stadium plan), if another team moved there, there would be little to no net damage.

If anything, damage has already been done by Stan's wanting to move, and it won't be repaired by blocking him from doing so.

 

[RamFan503]

The owners need to take into consideration the can of worms they open if they let him leave while his host city is pursuing a stadium on such a fast tracked timeline. There's going to be a press conference today on land acquisition, and if they've gotten past that hurdle, the next is financing. If the governor wants it done, he can grease the wheels of the general assembly if it comes to that.

I think it's important to remember that above all else, the league looks out for itself. St. Louis has been touted as an important market. If they plow ahead and just move while a deal is moving ahead, it'll damage the integrity of the league in this market. Let's also not forget that even after the Ray Rice scandal, the tax free status of the league was called into question by some of those in the government. If they keep breaking their own rules, they are going to lose it.

It just seems like you and @Boffo97 are so sure that a move is going to happen. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I'm not going to accept that until St. Louis hits a major roadblock in their proposal.

I'm not sure that the move is going to happen. I do think St Louis has to keep up what appears to be a new and heightened sense of urgency. This LA thing is not going to wait to see what St Louis does and Nixon and his group IMO should be worried far less about the bylaws and much more about how quickly they can secure funding and grease those wheels if that is what it takes.

The land acquisition is the easy part as far as I have seen. The city, county, or state can declare eminent domain and buy the land at bargain prices with little anyone can do about it. I'm not sure what environmental and transportation studies they would have to complete but I'm sure there are some.

The big hurdle to me is that the assembly and the governor seem to be at polar opposites on the funding issue. That can change of course as it seems a lot of the opposition is just posturing so they can look like they are looking out for the public good. I'm guessing Nixon is a Democrat and the assembly is a Republican majority. I'm a Libertarian so I don't care which is which but posturing is always going to be part of the picture. How much that holds is likely going to come down to how damaging it may be to look like you are standing in the way of the NFL staying in St Louis vs protecting the tax payers from giving millions to some billionaire. I sense that these polls so far are pretty one sided and designed to bolster the no new taxes side. The public may very well understand the benefits of keeping the Rams in St Louis but no one has asked them the right questions.

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that rather than blustering about how the NFL has it's bylaws protecting the market in St Louis, the Governor's group needs to nail down the funding and design issues and in a hurry.

Stan buys land and develops properties. It's what he does. I know the thought is that he would never build a stadium that he can't put his team into. But the reality is that if Stan sees a ROI in the deal, he very well could build the stadium and concert venue in partnership with another developer and sell it as any other development. It really can be that simple.

If St Louis comes up with a complete and acceptable proposal, I could very easily see Stan keeping his team in his home state.

 

[ChrisW]

Again though, it's not just that you make a proposal, if the other side doesn't like it, you can't force them into it. If you and I are trying to work out a deal, and I say "Here's this pencil, 500 dollars" you're just going to laugh and say no. So if I come back and say "Well you're supposed to try to make a deal, so you have to buy it." are you going to buy it? No, you're going to say no, and leave. While the proposal has many good things, there were obviously things he didn't like, so he's not obligated to just take the deal. The Rams will make that argument, the deal wasn't good enough for them, there's questions on if it would be in the top stadiums in the league even after being new.

The league does look out for itself, which is why I think there's problems, because the league wants a team in LA, and Stan certainly does that, when nobody else seems to be able to do. Law makers aren't going to take away tax free status over this either, LA has their own representatives as well anyway, that's not going to happen.

It's not so much that I am sure a move is going to happen, but rather I'm pretty sure not enough is being done to keep the Rams. It looks like the general attitude is "This is what we're making, tough crap, we're doing it, and we hope the league forces you into staying here." which doesn't seem smart. The only way their actions seem smart is if the thought it "We know you're going to leave, and this is all lip service, but we're going to focus on the next team, and work with the NFL to keep us as a viable option, so over the next few years as we hammer this out, we'll have a new team by the time our new stadium opens up."

It's just my take, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I don't think the NFL will block Stan, and I don't think Stan is planning on accepting the proposal.

Stan can't just flat out deny the proposal. He has to do some negotiating to fulfill the bylaws. He can't move just to improve his own wealth.

Also, talking about LA. It's been 20 years since a team was there. If the league wanted it so bad, there would be a team there by now.

 

[ChrisW]

I'm not sure that the move is going to happen. I do think St Louis has to keep up what appears to be a new and heightened sense of urgency. This LA thing is not going to wait to see what St Louis does and Nixon and his group IMO should be worried far less about the bylaws and much more about how quickly they can secure funding and grease those wheels if that is what it takes.

The land acquisition is the easy part as far as I have seen. The city, county, or state can declare eminent domain and buy the land at bargain prices with little anyone can do about it. I'm not sure what environmental and transportation studies they would have to complete but I'm sure there are some.

The big hurdle to me is that the assembly and the governor seem to be at polar opposites on the funding issue. That can change of course as it seems a lot of the opposition is just posturing so they can look like they are looking out for the public good. I'm guessing Nixon is a Democrat and the assembly is a Republican majority. I'm a Libertarian so I don't care which is which but posturing is always going to be part of the picture. How much that holds is likely going to come down to how damaging it may be to look like you are standing in the way of the NFL staying in St Louis vs protecting the tax payers from giving millions to some billionaire. I sense that these polls so far are pretty one sided and designed to bolster the no new taxes side. The public may very well understand the benefits of keeping the Rams in St Louis but no one has asked them the right questions.

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that rather than blustering about how the NFL has it's bylaws protecting the market in St Louis, the Governor's group needs to nail down the funding and design issues and in a hurry.

Stan buys land and develops properties. It's what he does. I know the thought is that he would never build a stadium that he can't put his team into. But the reality is that if Stan sees a ROI in the deal, he very well could build the stadium and concert venue in partnership with another developer and sell it as any other development. It really can be that simple.

If St Louis comes up with a complete and acceptable proposal, I could very easily see Stan keeping his team in his home state.

We haven't gotten into a debate on financials yet. So I can't say what can and cannot be done. All I know is that they are going to try and extend the current bonds on the dome, which will just extend the payments. If I remember, it's done via a rental car and hotel tax. So there is little burden on the actual residents of missouri, unless they run around renting cars and hotel rooms all the time. It seems that if you have public money paying for a stadium, it should be done with this kind of tax. Let the visitors to the city pay a little extra. Maybe if more conventions are booked with the CVC with the Rams out of the dome, it'll mean more money coming in via this tax.

 

[RamFan503]

Why do you think a lawsuit would hurt the league image more than ditching a whole market putting good faith efforts forward in a brand new stadium?

I don't personally think it would do squat to the league's image. What I think the league actually fears is the same thing it feared when Georgia threatened to sue - BILLIONS of dollars coming out of the pockets of other team owners - some of which actually might not be able to afford it. Georgia sued for $2.2 Billion. Fast forward 20 years and we are talking about a man offering to build a stadium on his own dime and move the team into a facility that could be the premier facility in the NFL. How many billions do you think would be involved in that lawsuit?

 

[bluecoconuts]

I would completely agree if we were talking about a paper mill or another business, but we're not. These are nowhere close to real businesses. Real businesses have things like competition and so on. While I don't know how the future will play out I don't think it will be as easy as you make it sound if St Louis continues to move forward as it has today.

LA's representatives are outnumbered. A political party that doesn't seem to like anything about California controls both chambers of Congress. And they absolutely despise your top California representative. That's not a knock on anyone, as I happen to think those guys are bat crap crazy, but just that I would expect no help in that arena.

If Stan is determined to leave, then what exactly would be "enough done to keep the Rams?" Myself I would have already been talking to other teams along with the NFL.

The rest of the country wouldn't gang up with St Louis, especially since many districts in California are part of that same party, that's rediculous. My point wasn't that there was going to be some legal fight, it was that there wouldn't be one. Most fans don't care, someone in Missouri may bring up something and it would die because its not a national issue, so the idea that congress is suddenly going to stand up and say no isnt a real argument, more wishful thinking.

If Stan is determined to leave, I don't know if there's much they can do, which makes it tricky. If their goal is to keep the Rams, it looks from the outside they're way off. If the goal is to have any team then it all seems fine.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I'm kind of paraphrasing but if you read through the bylaws it says that teams are free to discuss leases and stadiums with outside markets but that the league is to have final decision authority.

Well, that's a pretty risky manuever on Kroenke's part then, isn't it?

We know they're moving dirt out there... how much (if any) of his money is tied up in that activirty is anyone's guess.

But, before this thing ever gets to an owner's vote, I'm pretty sure he will have laid our some decent capital.

Seems risky to me.

But that's my take on him in this whole thing anyway.

I'm sure he and his advisers went over every scenario they could come up with and assigned risk factors to each scenario... that's what I'd do.
So, once that was done, the decision was made that the potential reward outweighed the risks.

But... (big BUT)... you can do your best to come up with every scenario and still not think of one.

That's why I will not lean too heavily on one side or the other.

He definitely could still lose out on his plan to move the team to L.A.
And STL could still lose out on keeping the Rams.

This thing is very fluid.

 

[RamFan503]

Can St. Louis Beat Stan Kroenke to the Punch? http://wp.me/p4pK1g-1Zs

Interesting Take...

So does anyone know how "additional corporate funding" would work? Is that just like the naming rights and such? If so, does anyone know what that amounts to?

 

[Rmfnlt]

But using that argument is what would set up an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL by Stan, because if the individual teams are just franchises, then the NFL is a monopoly.

It's me (confused again).

Isn't the NFL a monopoly now? That's why they have the exemption?