That said, if I were Kroenke and I wanted to make an argument that the St. Louis market has failed, I'd have several options to do so. I could point out that in recent years (if I've heard correctly) there's been a lot of non-sellouts recently. I could point out there's been quite a few home games that visiting fans comprised at least an atypically large minority. I could point out that the CVC failed to meet the lease requirements, and all they have provided so far is drawings with funding that is both uncertain (whether public funds can be extended without a vote on the matter) and unacceptable (Kroenke being on the hook for funds for a stadium he won't own.) You can retort that these arguments are BS, and as me, I'd concede you have a point. But the more important fact might simply be that they sound good. And there may be others in this vein too.
There's also the flip side:
-I think timing is important for certain "Non-Sell outs" - you have a Cardinal team thats in the post season vs a football team that's generally looking bad or out of it come mid-late october / early november.
I'm hesitant to place Blame on the CVC and their timing - Kroenke became owner in 2010, and arbitration over the Stadium didn't complete until early 2013.
It's not like they've been sitting on year to year leases over an extended period of time like the Raiders and Chargers have...
They're about to officially begin going year to year lease next season - Chargers are entering their 8th straight year on year to year lease and have been working on a stadium for 14 years... Raiders have been for awhile now too...
And the raiders have also shown the greatest propensity to move - they have another one year deal since no club has met the requirements to move this season, but they've already both publicly stated their intent and even discussed moving to San Antonio at one point...
since the beginning, my money has been on the Raiders to be the ones to move back to LA - that's just my two cents.
The Patriots are pretty much the poster child proving that Goodell has no teeth for actual punishment whatsoever. The Saints got hit pretty hard, but managed to get their punishment reduced on appeal. Not sure where you're going with the Browns.
The browns and Falcons have punishments coming up. Haslam is supposedly looking at a year long suspension for texting to the coaches on the sideline.... Falcons for crowd noise (rumor for now is draft picks is the punishment)
The article I recently posted raised a good point... suppose Kroenke doesn't get to move in 2016. Does it make more sense that he shrugs his shoulders, says "Oh well", and writes a check for the stadium that wrecked his plan? Or does he just keep using his unilateral year to year lease rights on the EJD (which he has until 2024) to keep pushing? And in the meantime, the fan support erodes more and more (next year alone will probably be ugly on the score). In my mind, the latter is the far more likely possibility.
If Kroenke did go rogue, I have no doubt he'd either be allowed, or issued a complete slap on the wrist punishment. But I absolutely think this process is going to go his way. Some other people have talked odds before... mine are 95%-5% in favor of a move... and trending upwards (especially if the Inglewood hearing on the 24th goes without a hitch.)
I disagree - the NFL does not want a repeat of the 90's with relocations. that's why the rules are in place... And it seems to me with how much Goodell keeps mentioning the teams must meet the relocation criteria.
You also gotta think about the overall perception of this move - it's not "Just a LA" issue...it also becomes an issue with owners. how long have the Raiders and Chargers been meeting the criteria, if not exceeding it, yet struggle to get a stadium? And if they're mentioning a move, you gotta believe they get first dibs at a move to LA before anyone else. Not to say that they'd be the only team there, but I don't think they're gonna build two stadiums... Which is also another point - even if Stan builds a stadium and the NFL denies the Rams a move - it won't be a complete waste..there are other neighboring franchises that could make use of it (College football teams, lease to Raiders/Chargers type of situation, etc.) I don't know how viable or realistic as a scenario this is, but it has mentioned as one of many "possibilities" or "fall backs."...
Spanos' delusions that he controls a city beyond the city his team is currently in are more amusing to me than anything else. I think some of these owners that he has on his side now could be convinced to switch their vote, especially if some money changes hands. Even Spanos might not object so long as Kroenke keeps the option for a 2nd team moving into the new stadium open.
I wouldn't say that he assumes he has control as much as he's consulted with owners who probably agree with him...And again, overall perception.
As a co-owner in a big company, I'd be pissed if my business partners were allowed to skate around the guide lines that everyone else has to follow..
If Kroenke did that, he'd be the equivalent of the Patriots if there were an owner league
?