New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

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.

Sure he can, where does it say he has to make a counter proposal? As far as I know the bylaws just state he needs to exhaust all options, not that he has to make counter proposals. If an offer isn't anywhere near what he wants then he can say no. If the city offered up a high school field is he obligated to work with that? He's allowed to say no.

The league has been trying to get a team there, but LA didn't want to build a stadium without a team commitment to moving, teams were mostly locked into leases or have no need to move, and owners didn't want to give up portions of their team for financing help. Its not like the league could just force a team to move. They needed an owner with a team that has stadium issues, no lease, money to build a stadium, a plan, and the desire. Enter Stan.

 

[ChrisW]

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?

Does this go into the private boxes? I read somewhere (could have been RamStalk) that most of the fortune 1000 companies in STL have come forward saying they would be buying boxes in the new stadium.

 

[ChrisW]

Sure he can, where does it say he has to make a counter proposal? As far as I know the bylaws just state he needs to exhaust all options, not that he has to make counter proposals. If an offer isn't anywhere near what he wants then he can say no. If the city offered up a high school field is he obligated to work with that? He's allowed to say no.

The league has been trying to get a team there, but LA didn't want to build a stadium without a team commitment to moving, teams were mostly locked into leases or have no need to move, and owners didn't want to give up portions of their team for financing help. Its not like the league could just force a team to move. They needed an owner with a team that has stadium issues, no lease, money to build a stadium, a plan, and the desire. Enter Stan.

Locked into leases? We've had several teams now threaten to move to LA. That's where the whole leverage joke about LA came about.

 

[Sum1]

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?

Forget the image. Let's talk future leverage.

How exactly is the league/teams going to go back to their markets and say, "We need you to build us a stadium or we will leave", if they are essentially saying that to St. Louis and then they turn around and leave anyway?

Seems to me the next team that needs a new stadium and pulls that is going to risk getting a big middle finger from the local market.

You can't convince me that the league wants that to happen. No doubt in my mind they want to go to LA and it might make a ton of financial sense to let Kroenke build that stadium and take the Rams there, but I have a hard time believing there won't be some other wrinkles to this if St. Louis has a real stadium effort sitting here. I just don't think this is going to be as simple as "Well, there's a bunch of money to be had in LA so screw this stadium you are building STL."

 

[bluecoconuts]

Locked into leases? We've had several teams now threaten to move to LA. That's where the whole leverage joke about LA came about.

They didn't have desire or potentially the means to move and set up an ideal situation. Stan is exactly what the NFL wants in terms of getting LA a team. Going to see LA in a team plane, or discussing a potential move is one thing, securing land, getting votes, setting up financing, and ensuring regulations are met is another.

 

[Sum1]

They didn't have desire or potentially the means to move and set up an ideal situation. Stan is exactly what the NFL wants in terms of getting LA a team. Going to see LA in a team plane, or discussing a potential move is one thing, securing land, getting votes, setting up financing, and ensuring regulations are met is another.

I don't know if it is exactly what they want.

They'd probably prefer that Stan didn't have cross ownership obstacles still present and they'd probably also prefer he owned a team whose current market also wasn't making real strides to building a viable stadium.

 

[tonyl711]

I really don't think that first part was necessary.

Sure, none of us know (including those who think the bylaws WILL be enforced) what's going to happen, but we can take educated guesses and two factors stand out for me:

1. Goodell has an established precedent of caring more for perceived integrity of the League than actual integrity, and thus not caring about rules as long as the "shield" continues to look good. A lawsuit by Stan would hurt the League's image far more than the Rams bolting even though a stadium has been proposed (after all, in that case, the door is still open for some other team to move to St. Louis). Other reasons have been given as to why Goodell would let it slide as well.

2. There's established legal precedent that 31 clubs trying to tell the 32nd how to do its business is a violation of anti-trust laws no matter what the bylaws say. At the end of the day, the team belongs to Stan (no matter how strongly we feel that it belongs to us or whatever city it happens to be in), and he's going to be able to do what he wants with it.


The franchise is already looking elsewhere. And St. Louis has already in all likelihood gotten such a delay anyway. What I don't think the bylaws are going to accomplish is keeping Stan in St. Louis against his will. Stan wouldn't have played things the way he has unless he's sure he's going to get his way one way or the other.

If the team stays in St. Louis, it's going to be because STAN was convinced to stay. And that's obvious without having to be in on league meetings.

i thought it was, you try to shoot down anything anyone says about a St Louis stadium, then you build up anything about LA, you try to act like anything St Louis does is too little too late. we all know you want the Rams in LA but don't try to state as fact your opinions.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know if it is exactly what they want.

They'd probably prefer that Stan didn't have cross ownership obstacles still present and they'd probably also prefer he owned a team whose current market also wasn't making real strides to building a viable stadium.

Very true, they're just easier obsticles to overcome.

 

[tonyl711]

I really don't think that first part was necessary.

Sure, none of us know (including those who think the bylaws WILL be enforced) what's going to happen, but we can take educated guesses and two factors stand out for me:

1. Goodell has an established precedent of caring more for perceived integrity of the League than actual integrity, and thus not caring about rules as long as the "shield" continues to look good. A lawsuit by Stan would hurt the League's image far more than the Rams bolting even though a stadium has been proposed (after all, in that case, the door is still open for some other team to move to St. Louis). Other reasons have been given as to why Goodell would let it slide as well.

2. There's established legal precedent that 31 clubs trying to tell the 32nd how to do its business is a violation of anti-trust laws no matter what the bylaws say. At the end of the day, the team belongs to Stan (no matter how strongly we feel that it belongs to us or whatever city it happens to be in), and he's going to be able to do what he wants with it.


The franchise is already looking elsewhere. And St. Louis has already in all likelihood gotten such a delay anyway. What I don't think the bylaws are going to accomplish is keeping Stan in St. Louis against his will. Stan wouldn't have played things the way he has unless he's sure he's going to get his way one way or the other.

If the team stays in St. Louis, it's going to be because STAN was convinced to stay. And that's obvious without having to be in on league meetings.

this last sentence is pure BS, you have no idea what the league can or will do if they don't want Stan to move, stop trying to state as fact your opinion.

 

[bluecoconuts]

i thought it was, you try to shoot down anything anyone says about a St Louis stadium, then you build up anything about LA, you try to act like anything St Louis does is too little too late. we all know you want the Rams in LA but don't try to state as fact your opinions.

For the record, again, I want the Rams to stay in St Louis. While I live in LA now, I won't be here forever, and I don't have time to go see a game anyway, so them playing here doesn't matter. I don't have time for Kings games either, I work a little over 100 hours a week. When I finish school I plan on moving to St Louis temporarily while I get things set up with work, so my girlfriend (who is from St Louis) can be closer to her family for a little while. In fact, we own property in St Louis, her mother gave us a house that she owns the deed to. So to me personally it's better if they stay. I'll have time to watch them and go to games when I'm there.

So if the leave then I'll be moving there and won't have any of my favorite teams around, other than when the Kings come to town. Granted I won't be there very long either, but chances are after St Louis I won't be going back to Southern California, unless Cal Tech, or UCLA or something hires me, which I don't think happens.

So as far as I'm considered I'll have a small window to watch the Rams in person, and I'll be in St Louis. If the Rams aren't there, then it doesn't help me.

However I try to look at things as a realist, right now things have been trending towards LA. There's far fewer things holding them up in the process. If its really a race between the two cities then LA seemed to have a big lead. Apparently they have one more vote, which most expect to be an easy pass, and then they have all their ducks in a row. If Stan isn't serious then it doesn't matter, but it really looks like he's serious, and I dont expect the NFL to block something they have openly stated they want.

 

[RamFan503]

It's me (confused again).

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

Pretty much.

A couple things come to mind in these latest comments. All great points IMO.

The Subway analogy is a good one except that it is true as a franchise, you would be allowed to move your franchise if you showed the HC that you would be moving to a better market. It is similar in that you would have to either demonstrate that the site they backed you in to begin with was either at risk of going under or the other market was so far superior. I think the NFL would have a hard time not wanting an owner of a franchise to improve their bottom line substantially but moving into the second largest market in the country. But that doesn't mean they would sacrifice a good market to do it.

All this comes with risk. It is what NFL owners do in their non NFL careers for the most part.

One hitch to the whole argument that Stan owns an independent business is not so much that he is controlled by franchise rules by the parent company as much as he has bought a franchise that willingly took public money to move into a market. The difference IMO (and I don't have anything to back this up) between the Rams and say Boeing or Chrystler is that he bought a franchise that enjoys protections from anti-trust laws. The NFL with it's structure would attempt to block anyone else from moving into his market territory. While Subway would do the same for one of its franchisees, there are craploads of sandwich franchises and mom and pops that could move right next door.

Bottom line is that I would think that accepting public funds puts the Rams in a unique situation that might change the playing field. Excuse pun please. I don't know if it would but I suspect there would be some kind of attempt to use that in a lawsuit. In a way I'm guessing that it could be argued that St Louis is an investor in the Rams and the Rams have made money on that investment that needs to at least be paid back. Probably a reach but I've seen crazier things.

I don't have any idea how this thing will finally play out but in the end my guess is that the Rams will be playing in a pretty cool venue.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I live 19 miles from Inglewood. I want the Rams back but there is no denying that St Louis is giving a legit effort to get a new stadium. Oakland and San Diego should take notes.

 

[RamFan503]

Does this go into the private boxes? I read somewhere (could have been RamStalk) that most of the fortune 1000 companies in STL have come forward saying they would be buying boxes in the new stadium.

Yeah - I don't know. I'm wondering how much it all amounts to and how that affects the project, Stan's ability to profit from his team, the city/state's ability to sell the remaining financing to the public/assembly, etc.

If there is an additional $200 million let's say, and it goes toward helping the city finance the building of the stadium, then the sell to the public seems much easier. If it all means that Stan "only" stands to profit from his portion of TV revenues, is that a ridiculously low ROI for a guy like Stan after he pays salaries and all other expenses? If the city collects the corporate money for these boxes, does Stan even get money from ticket sales? I'd have to guess that corporate box monies, at least for the games, go to the Rams - not the city/state. But if not, what does a new stadium do for the Rams? A slightly higher ticket price? A higher team value?

The financing part is a huge question and there are a bunch of factors that I just haven't seen discussed. Maybe it's out there somewhere and I just haven't been paying attention.

 

[RamBill]

St. Louis moving swiftly to stay an 'NFL city'
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16137/st-louis-moving-swiftly-to-keep-the-nfl

ST. LOUIS -- Over the course of the next year, there will be plenty of talk about timelines, with catchphrases such as "exhausting all opportunities" and "abiding by relocation guidelines" bandied about when it comes to the future of the Rams in St. Louis.

The Rams and owner Stan Kroenke will contend that they have been seeking a new stadium solution in St. Louis for the past four years or so. St. Louis and the state of Missouri will counter that the process didn't really begin until after the Edward Jones Dome arbitration, which is a window that opened just a little more than two years ago.

On the surface, that would seem to be an important argument in determining whether the Rams made a good-faith effort in trying to stay in their current market. But it really isn't because NFL commissioner Roger Goodell already made it clear how he views that debate at his Super Bowl week news conference.

"Stan has been working on the stadium issue in St. Louis for several years," Goodell said. "They had a very formal process as part of their lease. They went through that entire process. It did not result in a solution that works either for St. Louis or the team. So I don't think the stadium is a surprise to anybody in any market that is having these issues. There's quite a bit of discussion about it. The St. Louis representatives seem determined to build a stadium. That's a positive development, something that we look forward to working with them."

Apparently, Goodell has been doing plenty of that. As Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced that the St. Louis stadium project cleared a couple of significant logistical hurdles Tuesday afternoon, he mentioned multiple times his recent conversations with Goodell. He characterized those discussions as positive and encouraging.

That's a good thing for NFL fans in St. Louis. But it also guarantees nothing when it comes to the Rams being the team that would occupy a new stadium should it get built.

Nixon's news conference was as much about updating the progress of the project as it was about announcing the relocation of some power lines and a railroad line. It offered Nixon a chance to hammer home the urgency of it all. For those not paying attention, Nixon made it abundantly clear that even if he doesn't know what the future of the Rams is, he does know one way to guarantee it: doing nothing.

"I'm not going to handicap this other than to say that if we do nothing then we're not an NFL city," Nixon said.

Nixon followed by pointing to rundown buildings and parcels of land on the north riverfront in desperate need of an overhaul. His voice rose and he hammered his point home.

"[By] doing nothing, it's really easy to see what's going to happen," Nixon said.

By this point in the process, it's readily apparent that what happens with the St. Louis stadium plan might ultimately have little effect on what happens to the Rams. The plan in St. Louis calls for a $250 million commitment from Kroenke and to this point, it appears he has his sights set on Los Angeles. And though the NFL continues to insist it will follow guidelines on relocation, Kroenke's plan still offers the best opportunity to get the league back in Los Angeles in 20 years.

That doesn't mean the efforts being made in St. Louis aren't worthwhile. From the start of this process, Nixon has taken great care to use the term "NFL city" with little specific mention of the Rams. He mentioned the Rams a couple of times Tuesday but again shifted the focus to working with the league and commissioner Roger Goodell on remaining an NFL city.

"We're an NFL city," Nixon said. "And in order to remain an NFL city, we have to have facilities that meet that. In order to get a deal of that nature done, it requires both public and private work. I think the actions the NFL has shown to us and with us during this process, have been positive and realistic. Our job is to make sure we're in the best position possible to keep the Rams or whatever NFL franchise may or may not eventually be here."

When all is said and done, that might be the ultimate end game here. The NFL currently has three birds to kill but only two stones that might be available. To find a new home for the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and Rams is a league priority. And if St. Louis can offer one of those stones in addition to Los Angeles, their chances of remaining an NFL city dramatically increase. It then just becomes a matter of which bird is willing to call it home.

 

[ChrisW]

Yeah - I don't know. I'm wondering how much it all amounts to and how that affects the project, Stan's ability to profit from his team, the city/state's ability to sell the remaining financing to the public/assembly, etc.

If there is an additional $200 million let's say, and it goes toward helping the city finance the building of the stadium, then the sell to the public seems much easier. If it all means that Stan "only" stands to profit from his portion of TV revenues, is that a ridiculously low ROI for a guy like Stan after he pays salaries and all other expenses? If the city collects the corporate money for these boxes, does Stan even get money from ticket sales? I'd have to guess that corporate box monies, at least for the games, go to the Rams - not the city/state. But if not, what does a new stadium do for the Rams? A slightly higher ticket price? A higher team value?

The financing part is a huge question and there are a bunch of factors that I just haven't seen discussed. Maybe it's out there somewhere and I just haven't been paying attention.

I don't think the revenue breakdowns are out there. But I'm willing to bet that the conversations with Rams management is a huge part of this.

 

[blue4]

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.

It's completely relevant to your analogy. No way Subway lets a healthy store move from on replace to another without some way of keeping the current market satisfied. It's easier to open another store to serve everyone, how is that not relevant? Seems obvious to me that the optimal arrangement from a business perspective is to move the Raiders. Using the franchise analogy.

 

[blue4]

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.

That was my point, that counting on LA politicians to help was unrealistic, not that official government intervention was likely. I didn't bring this angle up as a topic, I only responded to your assertion that politicians from LA would have some greater effect on any process.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Unrelated, but I noticed this in the window of a building across from.my apartment, and thought it was funny. Anyone wanna get in business with Stan?

 

[RamFan503]

Unrelated, but I noticed this in the window of a building across from.my apartment, and thought it was funny. Anyone wanna get in business with Stan?

Think he'd give us a sweetheart deal?

 

[RamFan503]

It's completely relevant to your analogy. No way Subway lets a healthy store move from on replace to another without some way of keeping the current market satisfied. It's easier to open another store to serve everyone, how is that not relevant? Seems obvious to me that the optimal arrangement from a business perspective is to move the Raiders. Using the franchise analogy.

A friend of mine owned a Subway. He was between selling and closing because he was kind of done with the local market. The HC supplied him with all kinds of demographic info from other markets to get him to move instead of closing. They did also send out a marketing team to see if they could help his presence and other things to capture more of the market but they were all over helping him move into other areas in order to keep him as a franchisee. He finally sold his franchise a few months ago. And I forgot one thing about it. One of the things that clinched it for him was that they allowed a Subway to go in to the Walmart just a few hundred yards from his store. So much for protecting a franchisee's market.