New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

bullcrap. 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.


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.


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.


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.)

Whatever. I see you're determined to be dramatic.

 

[Boffo97]

Whatever. I see you're determined to be dramatic.

No, just determined to call BS for what it is.

Do you possibly have anything to say related to the possible relocation issues rather than me? Because that would be nice.

 

[mr.stlouis]

So the newest rumor is the Rams are about to be sold to an interest group lead by Peacock. That's why Grubmam keeps coming to town. No source, straight of Rams Talk. It's all I got and it's interesting.

 

[ZigZagRam]

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.

There are likely going to be threatened lawsuits no matter the outcome.

 

[Angry Ram]

So the newest rumor is the Rams are about to be sold to an interest group lead by Peacock. That's why Grubmam keeps coming to town. No source, straight of Rams Talk. It's all I got and it's interesting.

I would love for this rumor to be true. Seems like the best case and more of a community friendly ownership group.

It's also really far-fetched IMO.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I would love for this rumor to be true. Seems like the best case and more of a community friendly ownership group.

It's also really far-fetched IMO.

I've heard rumblings that Peacock has been assembling an ownership group since day 1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were to come to fruition.

Kroenke selling the Rams is that part that I find unlikely unless the NFL forces his hand and votes down a move of the Rams out of St. Louis.

 

[Boffo97]

There are likely going to be threatened lawsuits no matter the outcome.

Oh, I can completely agree with that.

It's just there's been a number of relocation related lawsuits threatened or made in recent history and the only case where the NFL ever blocked a move was Seattle to Los Angeles. And there, it didn't reach a courtroom, and there was the huge factor of the owner fraudulently trying to get out of his lease, namely that he used fear of earthquakes as an excuse to move to... Los Angeles.

Franchise or not, courtrooms are going to tend to see 31 teams attempting to dictate to the 32nd how to run their business as a violation of antitrust.

 

[blue4]

No, just determined to call BS for what it is.

Do you possibly have anything to say related to the possible relocation issues rather than me? Because that would be nice.

Yep that's exactly what im doing. Calling bullshit for what it is. I like how you pretend that you're not the one who made this scene to start with. The fact is I don't think Stan has anymore rights than Spanos does according to the bylaws. Which is what I thought you had been arguing for several pages. You've been very supportive of Stan being able to do what he wants, and not at all of the same for Spanos. If you can't see at least the perception of two different arguments then I don't know what to tell you. It was never meant to be taken as some personal attack. You're the one who said the word hypocrite. You're the one who made it about you.
Now, I've explained myself and my intentions about my post. Im not going to give you some sort of apology as I don't feel I've done any wrong to you. And I've got to go to sleep so this is the last response.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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

Double the distance.

It is a comparable drive, I've done both and I'll leave it at that. San Diego is not "just down the street" from LA.

 

[Prime Time]

@Boffo97 and @blue4

Stop with the personal attacks. You're harshing my buzz.

 

[Boffo97]

I've heard rumblings that Peacock has been assembling an ownership group since day 1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were to come to fruition.

Kroenke selling the Rams is that part that I find unlikely unless the NFL forces his hand and votes down a move of the Rams out of St. Louis.

The only way I ever see Kroenke selling is if someone offered him crazy money to do so. Any attempt by the League to force Kroenke to sell would end up a huge lawsuit. I believe the only reason the NBA was able to do so to Donald Sterling was, besides nationwide outrage which wouldn't be a factor here, was that Sterling had Alzheimer's and had the team in a trust.

To everyone else, I apologize for responding to the personal stuff. I really do want to keep things on topic.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

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.

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?

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.

bullcrap. 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.

Alright. Both of you knock off the bullshit. This is about neither of you. I will say this. Boffo - you started it with the first thing I quoted. The arguments were not about you so much as what you in particular were saying. In that respect, most posts in response would be about you and your response. I didn't see anything personal in the responses and you can't expect that you can post this much on a subject and have people not follow your MO.

This back and forth is getting to be about you two and not the subject and it needs to stop. It's a tough enough of a subject as it is without you guys turning it into a spat. Don't MAKE me come back there!

 

[ZigZagRam]

The only way I ever see Kroenke selling is if someone offered him crazy money to do so. Any attempt by the League to force Kroenke to sell would end up a huge lawsuit. I believe the only reason the NBA was able to do so to Donald Sterling was, besides nationwide outrage which wouldn't be a factor here, was that Sterling had Alzheimer's and had the team in a trust.

To everyone else, I apologize for responding to the personal stuff. I really do want to keep things on topic.

I wasn't insinuating the league would force him to sell. I was simply saying that if the league doesn't approve a move of the Rams to Los Angeles, he may consider selling and pursue other teams in an effort to either solve his cross-ownership problems, or move another 'approved' team into Los Angeles which may be a cheaper, more desired avenue than spending countless money/time in a lengthy antitrust litigation battle.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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?

Well as far as I know, LA has never been close to a team coming back. There has always been rumors, but never really anything happening, tons of plans that never get anywhere, etc. The moment Stan made his announcement suddenly Spanos gets moving and gets into a big huff about wanting to do it. He's had plenty of opportunities, which tells me he's never really been serious. My guess is the city of San Diego felt the same, because they never really worked with him. Neither side did as far as I can tell. In fact, Stan is probably his best chance to get to LA, because he can't afford it himself, and unless he wants to give up a large of his team (unlikely), he probably needs to share the stadium. The idea he should get the city to himself is a joke though, because he can't afford to do it in the first place.

The problem is similar to a nuclear war tactic, it "works" because you don't threaten very often, and make sure your threat is credible. The problem is if you do it too much, people catch on. The Chargers have made a threat to move so much, but haven't done a single thing to follow through and demonstrate that their threat means anything. San Diego wasn't buying it, and the only reason they likely do now is because they assume he's about to have a couch to crash on.

 

[Boffo97]

I wasn't insinuating the league would force him to sell. I was simply saying that if the league doesn't approve a move of the Rams to Los Angeles, he may consider selling and pursue other teams in an effort to either solve his cross-ownership problems, or move another 'approved' team into Los Angeles which may be a cheaper, more desired avenue than spending countless money/time in a lengthy antitrust litigation battle.

While that's a possibility, I don't see that happening. Kroenke strikes me as a guy who has planned everything from when he took over the team. He didn't buy this team just to sell it because he hit a setback.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I've heard rumblings that Peacock has been assembling an ownership group since day 1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were to come to fruition.

Kroenke selling the Rams is that part that I find unlikely unless the NFL forces his hand and votes down a move of the Rams out of St. Louis.

That's very interesting. Kroenke does have that issue with cross ownership to contend with. I wonder if he's looking to switch horses...

 

[BuiltRamTough]

No matter what the Inglewood deal is going down. Next Tuesday the Butts guy will pass the initiative. I don't think it's going to come down to a vote. The council dudes will straight up give the green light for construction. Once that happens then everything will fall into place. Itll be breaking news yadadada

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's very interesting. Kroenke does have that issue with cross ownership to contend with. I wonder if he's looking to switch horses...

Last I heard he had the extension, still a few months left on it, and planned on fixing it shortly. I don't think that'll be an issue.

 

[Boffo97]

Last I heard he had the extension, still a few months left on it, and planned on fixing it shortly. I don't think that'll be an issue.

I do think it's worth noting that he's transferring ownership of the other teams to his son rather than selling them... so this really comes across as satisfying the letter of the bylaws but not the spirit. Which could be very telling as to how the owners will rule on whether or not Kroenke has met the qualifications for relocation.

 

[Goose]

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.

You are correct he has options but most aren't without penalties.

1. If he goes rogue, which it has been indicated he won't, the NFL can penalize him in several different ways. After all the swapping of the early 90's the bylaws were amended and penalties were put in place for going against the bylaws. Amy Trask pointed out the biggest penalty would be withholding share revenue and draft picks. Since this is a big source of revenue for the teams that would be significant. Also consider NFL events such as the SB would be a possiblity.

2. He can continue to go year to year but that provides someone else to move to LA so if they tell Stan no then my guess is someone else is moving in.

3. What would he get if he sued? He would get the right to move but he would still be subject to all of the penalties of going rogue and he burns bridges will almost all the other owners.

If I am Stan and I can't move my team I try and sell/buy/swap a team that can move. The Raiders are in serious financial turmoil and have ownership issues. The Davis family was able to circumvent the real-estate tax issue when Al died by moving ownership to his wife and selling off a portion of the franchise. The Davis family only owns 41% or so of the team. Now the Davis family gets to maintain control and cannot be forced to sell as part of the deal but Stan could by the 50+% that the Davis family does not own. Also when Carol Davis passes Mark is going to be dealing with the real estate tax again and will probably have to sell.