New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Boffo97]

First we say that since its a business Stan can do whatever he wants. Now we're talking about another business having no right to expand his business into vacant territory or to protect that newly won business from someone coming into the market. Which is it? Is the NFL just businesses, or is it a special franchise with rules that must be followed by all, even to a perceived detriment? Cause it seems to me your argument changes depending on the team.

It is a business where at the end of the day, an owner should be able to do what he wants with his team. After all, as I've pointed out, the St. Louis CVC themselves once sued the League for antitrust because there were too many barriers to a team moving.

But, a team in one city has no right to claim another city as their market to try to block moves to that other city. Would you buy it in the slightest if the Rams did move, and then the Chiefs tried to stop another team from moving to St. Louis because they claimed control of that market?

No argument change at all unless you're specifically twisting things around to try to look for one. The Chargers didn't have a right to expand into L.A., but were able to do so by happenstance. Now they have no right to keep that market to themselves.

Spanos' stupid claim here is going to lead to nothing but embarrassing himself.

 

[Dxmissile]

It is a business where at the end of the day, an owner should be able to do what he wants with his team. After all, as I've pointed out, the St. Louis CVC themselves once sued the League for antitrust because there were too many barriers to a team moving.

But, a team in one city has no right to claim another city as their market to try to block moves to that other city. Would you buy it in the slightest if the Rams did move, and then the Chiefs tried to stop another team from moving to St. Louis because they claimed control of that market?

No argument change at all unless you're specifically twisting things around to try to look for one. The Chargers didn't have a right to expand into L.A., but were able to do so by happenstance. Now they have no right to keep that market to themselves.

Spanos' stupid claim here is going to lead to nothing but embarrassing himself.

The claim he is making isn't stupid, so tell me if you owned a business and 25 percent of all that business came from place that didn't have any competition in it, you wouldn't protect it. What he is saying is I have spent considerable resources into winning over some of those fans in that market so why should an outsider come in when I already have an inside track. No matter if you're pro move or not stating his claim is stupid isn't very reasonable

 

[ChrisW]

It is a business where at the end of the day, an owner should be able to do what he wants with his team.

This isn't how owning a franchise works. He can only do what he wants if it is for the good of the league. That's what this task for was set up for, to figure all this shit out.

 

[bluecoconuts]

First we say that since its a business Stan can do whatever he wants. Now we're talking about another business having no right to expand his business into vacant territory or to protect that newly won business from someone coming into the market. Which is it? Is the NFL just businesses, or is it a special franchise with rules that must be followed by all, even to a perceived detriment? Cause it seems to me your argument changes depending on the team.

If the Chargers had actually been trying to move into that market, then maybe. Instead they have just wanted to keep it open so they can use them for leverage.

 

[blue4]

It is a business where at the end of the day, an owner should be able to do what he wants with his team. After all, as I've pointed out, the St. Louis CVC themselves once sued the League for antitrust because there were too many barriers to a team moving.

But, a team in one city has no right to claim another city as their market to try to block moves to that other city. Would you buy it in the slightest if the Rams did move, and then the Chiefs tried to stop another team from moving to St. Louis because they claimed control of that market?

No argument change at all unless you're specifically twisting things around to try to look for one. The Chargers didn't have a right to expand into L.A., but were able to do so by happenstance. Now they have no right to keep that market to themselves.

Spanos' stupid claim here is going to lead to nothing but embarrassing himself.

I'm not twisting anything. Spanos should have a right to expand to a vacant market and a right to defend that market. It's what any business would do. I'm just curious why Stans team gets to act like a normal business and Spanos's doesn't. And KC in across on the opposite side of the state from STL. SD is right down the road from LA. I'm not saying Spanos would be successful, I'm saying he has a right to either defend what he sees as his or defend his own right to move there since he already does a large chunk of business there. 25% of season ticket sales is not a stupid claim. You've been making the argument that Stan can act like a normal business why not Spanos?

 

[bluecoconuts]

The claim he is making isn't stupid, so tell me if you owned a business and 25 percent of all that business came from place that didn't have any competition in it, you wouldn't protect it. What he is saying is I have spent considerable resources into winning over some of those fans in that market so why should an outsider come in when I already have an inside track. No matter if you're pro move or not stating his claim is stupid isn't very reasonable

I don't think he's spent really any resources to "get" that LA market, I've certainly never seen it. It's likely due to people not liking the Raiders, and not liking the 49ers, so defaulting to the Chargers.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not twisting anything. Spanos should have a right to expand to a vacant market and a right to defend that market. It's what any business would do. I'm just curious why Stans team gets to act like a normal business and Spanos's doesn't. And KC in across on the opposite side of the state from STL. SD is right down the road from LA. I'm not saying Spanos would be successful, I'm saying he has a right to either defend what he sees as his or defend his own right to move there since he already does a large chunk of business there. 25% of season ticket sales is not a stupid claim. You've been making the argument that Stan can act like a normal business why not Spanos?

It's a 3 hour drive, just a little less than KC to St Louis.

 

[Boffo97]

The claim he is making isn't stupid, so tell me if you owned a business and 25 percent of all that business came from place that didn't have any competition in it, you wouldn't protect it. What he is saying is I have spent considerable resources into winning over some of those fans in that market so why should an outsider come in when I already have an inside track. No matter if you're pro move or not stating his claim is stupid isn't very reasonable

Of course it's stupid. I can see why he would want to protect it, but the claim is absolutely baseless. No owner has a right to anything beyond his own city, and even that could be questionable. Spanos was lucky to get access to L.A. with little competition for 20 years.

If his claim is given any merit at all, then no team could ever relocate or form ever because wherever you try to move them to or form them in, some team could claim it's really their market. Ludicrous.

This isn't how owning a franchise works. He can only do what he wants if it is for the good of the league. That's what this task for was set up for, to figure all this crap out.

And if the League tries to dictate that moves can only be made for the good of the League, they will be sued for violation of antitrust law and they will lose. And they know it.

The task force was only set up to try to make things LOOK good. Goodell is all about appearance.

I'm not twisting anything. Spanos should have a right to expand to a vacant market and a right to defend that market. It's what any business would do. I'm just curious why Stans team gets to act like a normal business and Spanos's doesn't. And KC in across on the opposite side of the state from STL. SD is right down the road from LA. I'm not saying Spanos would be successful, I'm saying he has a right to either defend what he sees as his or defend his own right to move there since he already does a large chunk of business there. 25% of season ticket sales is not a stupid claim. You've been making the argument that Stan can act like a normal business why not Spanos?

Of course you're twisting, because I'm not being in the least contradictory. And you're toeing the line into making the argument about me, and I would like that to stop.

BOTH teams get to act like a normal business. Being able to move one's own team if one wants IS acting like a normal business. Claiming a market outside of your own is not. NOW, is that settled?

Thanks to bluecoconuts for already addressing the idea that supposedly KC trying to claim the St. Louis market wasn't comparable.

 

[blue4]

It's a 3 hour drive, just a little less than KC to St Louis.

Stl to KC 249 miles.
LA to SD 121 miles.

Double the distance.

 

[dbrooks25]

If the Chargers had actually been trying to move into that market, then maybe. Instead they have just wanted to keep it open so they can use them for leverage.

Do we know that for sure? From what I'm reading they are for a move to LA if they can clear this ownership hurdle. How can you use a city as leverage for over a decade but receive nothing from said leverage?

 

[dbrooks25]

Very curious to see how many pages this thread will be up to come September of this year. All of this back and forth over speculation is hilarious.

 

[blue4]

Of course it's stupid. I can see why he would want to protect it, but the claim is absolutely baseless. No owner has a right to anything beyond his own city, and even that could be questionable. Spanos was lucky to get access to L.A. with little competition for 20 years.

If his claim is given any merit at all, then no team could ever relocate or form ever because wherever you try to move them to or form them in, some team could claim it's really their market. Ludicrous.


And if the League tries to dictate that moves can only be made for the good of the League, they will be sued for violation of antitrust law and they will lose. And they know it.

The task force was only set up to try to make things LOOK good. Goodell is all about appearance.


Of course you're twisting, because I'm not being in the least contradictory. And you're toeing the line into making the argument about me, and I would like that to stop.

BOTH teams get to act like a normal business. Being able to move one's own team if one wants IS acting like a normal business. Claiming a market outside of your own is not. NOW, is that settled?

Thanks to bluecoconuts for already addressing the idea that supposedly KC trying to claim the St. Louis market wasn't comparable.

I'm not making the argument about you for God's sake. Stop with the drama. You're making it about you. I'm pointing out what I consider to be a logical flaw in the argument you made in the post I've first responded to. You don't agree fine, but don't get dramatic.

And I've already pointed out to blue coconut that it's double the miles from STL to KC. Not to mention on the other side of the state. And KC never had season ticket sales of 25% from STL. Not even a close comparison.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I think the more important part of Spanos' claim is that he's worked in good faith for 14 years to try and find a solution in San Diego. This is, after all, what the league wants it's owners to do. And now he's essentially going to be penalized for doing what the bylaws and the NFL promote.

In other words, Spanos has done what's asked of all owners, and another owner who has not, may get the green light despite not sticking to the same process of 'exhausting all efforts' in the current market.

I'd be upset too!

 

[Boffo97]

Do we know that for sure? From what I'm reading they are for a move to LA if they can clear this ownership hurdle. How can you use a city as leverage for over a decade but receive nothing from said leverage?

My answer to that question? Because you've used that leverage poorly. The Chargers have been (IIRC) on a year to year lease for 14 years and haven't made significant progress towards a stadium in either L.A. or San Diego. That doesn't entitle them to any claim to the market though.

I'm not making the argument about you for God's sake. Stop with the drama. You're making it about you. I'm pointing out what I consider to be a logical flaw in the argument you made in the post I've first responded to. You don't agree fine, but don't get dramatic.

And I've already pointed out to blue coconut that it's double the miles from STL to KC. Not to mention on the other side of the state. And KC never had season ticket sales of 25% from STL. Not even a close comparison.

If you're accusing me of hypocrisy, you certainly are making it about me, so don't even try that bullshit. And since I've pointed out exactly how it is consistent, can we move on now? Please?

And it may be double the miles... but still relatively close and I could see the Chiefs making some sort of argument in that direction if Spanos' argument is given any validity. Hell, I could see Khan making noise about controlling London.

 

[Boffo97]

I think the more important part of Spanos' claim is that he's worked in good faith for 14 years to try and find a solution in San Diego. This is, after all, what the league wants it's owners to do. And now he's essentially going to be penalized for doing what the bylaws and the NFL promote.

In other words, Spanos has done what's asked of all owners, and another owner who has not, may get the green light despite not sticking to the same process of 'exhausting all efforts' in the current market.

I'd be upset too!

The problem remains that the "exhausting all efforts" clause is very subjective. The Rams have a very good argument that they did exhaust all effort when they made a proposal on how to bring the EJD into compliance with the lease, prevailed in the arbitration, and St. Louis declined, and that furthermore, a stadium requiring them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars into it that they still wouldn't own (and even if they did pay, still has serious questions as to whether or not the public funding will come through) is not acceptable.

 

[blue4]

My answer to that question? Because you've used that leverage poorly. The Chargers have been (IIRC) on a year to year lease for 14 years and haven't made significant progress towards a stadium in either L.A. or San Diego. That doesn't entitle them to any claim to the market though.


If you're accusing me of hypocrisy, you certainly are making it about me, so don't even try that bullcrap. And since I've pointed out exactly how it is consistent, can we move on now? Please?

And it may be double the miles... but still relatively close and I could see the Chiefs making some sort of argument in that direction if Spanos' argument is given any validity. Hell, I could see Khan making noise about controlling London.

I never said anything about YOU being a hypocrite. You said that. I said it doesn't make sense to me. So please stop trying to make me into some sort of bad guy. I've done nothing more than make points I think are valid in response to others, absolutely no different than you or anyone else. So don't even try THAT bullcrap.

 

[ZigZagRam]

The problem remains that the "exhausting all efforts" clause is very subjective. The Rams have a very good argument that they did exhaust all effort when they made a proposal on how to bring the EJD into compliance with the lease, prevailed in the arbitration, and St. Louis declined, and that furthermore, a stadium requiring them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars into it that they still wouldn't own (and even if they did pay, still has serious questions as to whether or not the public funding will come through) is not acceptable.

I don't think it's very subjective when you compare the efforts of the Chargers and the efforts of the Rams.

One owner has clearly tried to make it work in the current market over a long period of time while the other proposed an unrealistic renovation proposal, and refuses to sit down with the city to negotiate.

The Chargers have been negotiating with the city of San Diego for nearly the entire life of the Edward Jones Dome.

But there's obviously going to be some bias in how you view the efforts as you understandably want your team back. I get it.

 

[Goose]

The problem remains that the "exhausting all efforts" clause is very subjective. The Rams have a very good argument that they did exhaust all effort when they made a proposal on how to bring the EJD into compliance with the lease, prevailed in the arbitration, and St. Louis declined, and that furthermore, a stadium requiring them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars into it that they still wouldn't own (and even if they did pay, still has serious questions as to whether or not the public funding will come through) is not acceptable.

Boffo everyone keeps bringing up the ownership piece buy only 6 out of 32 owners own their stadiums. Mr. Jones doesn't "technically own" the AT&T Stadium the city does. This is down for certain tax and maintenance purposes. The real details is in the lease how the pie is going to be split. If the NFL denies Stan's bid to move then he has two choices. Pay into the new stadium or play at the EJD.

 

[Selassie I]

Did somebody actually attempt to "pollute" this thread with a post comparing STL and LA women?

 

[Boffo97]

I never said anything about YOU being a hypocrite. You said that. I said it doesn't make sense to me. So please stop trying to make me into some sort of bad guy. I've done nothing more than make points I think are valid in response to others, absolutely no different than you or anyone else. So don't even try THAT bullcrap.

Bullshit. You specifically said my standards changed depending on what team we're talking about, and more than once.

But you're not going to admit the obvious, so in the interest of moving on, I'll let you continue to deny what's pretty clear. I only ask that you not go there any more from here on out and keep it on topic.

I don't think it's very subjective when you compare the efforts of the Chargers and the efforts of the Rams.

One owner has clearly tried to make it work in the current market over a long period of time while the other proposed an unrealistic renovation proposal, and refuses to sit down with the city to negotiate.

The Chargers have been negotiating with the city of San Diego for nearly the entire life of the Edward Jones Dome.

But there's obviously going to be some bias in how you view the efforts as you understandably want your team back. I get it.

Sure, there's some bias in both the pro-move and anti-move sides.

But the rules are subjective. If 24 owners agree that they've been satisfied, then they've been satisfied. And if 9 owners disagree, then they haven't. No matter what anyone here thinks. And a lot of those 24 owners will be influenced by the desire to return a team to L.A., and to avoid a lawsuit.

Boffo everyone keeps bringing up the ownership piece buy only 6 out of 32 owners own their stadiums. Mr. Jones doesn't "technically own" the AT&T Stadium the city does. This is down for certain tax and maintenance purposes. The real details is in the lease how the pie is going to be split. If the NFL denies Stan's bid to move then he has two choices. Pay into the new stadium or play at the EJD.

Oh, Stan has a lot more choices than that. (And I think he definitely wants to own.)

1. Go rogue, move on his own, and dare the NFL to do something about it when historical precedent has shown that they will lose.
2. Take a "no" answer as a "not right now" answer and continue to use his unilateral year by year options in the EJD while pushing for a move until 2024, which none of us want.
3. Sue, and probably win.

That's just off the top of my head. If you were Stan, and you really wanted to move into this huge complex you would own, and the League said no (for argument's sake, as I don't think they will), would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well" and write a check for a few hundred million dollars? That just doesn't seem realistic to me.

Did somebody actually attempt to "pollute" this thread with a post comparing STL and LA women?

Yes, because a one off joke post that should have offended no one is comparable to 2 pages of organized harassment against a user for comments they made elsewhere. (Which I suppose wasn't personal either.)