New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

These to me look like options you hope will play out. It's been widely reported that Kroenke and the Rams will honor the league's decision when it comes to this matter. Is it true? Who knows, but he has a few options, and staying put and going along with the stadium proposal from St. Louis is definitely one of them along with the ones you mentioned. Another thing is he better have that cross ownership problem taken care of if he does try to challenge the NFL.

Did they say that? I thought they just said he wouldn't go rouge and move without bringing it up for a vote. I can't imagine he would back himself into a corner and say he would honor any call. Bringing it up to a vote doesn't mean he'll let them tell him no, I think its more him saying he'll let the league say it's their call. It's insane to spend 2 billion dollars and let the league say you can't move. Once construction starts, I don't know how they stop him.

 

[bluecoconuts]

We'll see about that, seems like he was supposed to be transferring ownership to his son a LONG time ago. I'm sure I heard the same thing a couple of years ago.

He requested an extension, that was it. The extension ends in a few months, and it should be good then, according to those in the know.

 

[Boffo97]

Did they say that? I thought they just said he wouldn't go rouge and move without bringing it up for a vote. I can't imagine he would back himself into a corner and say he would honor any call. Bringing it up to a vote doesn't mean he'll let them tell him no, I think its more him saying he'll let the league say it's their call. It's insane to spend 2 billion dollars and let the league say you can't move. Once construction starts, I don't know how they stop him.

That's exactly how I feel. Stan has a plan. He's going to along with the process only as long as it suits him to do so.

The second he's told no (which I don't believe it will come to), I just CANNOT see him meekly rolling over and writing that check for the Riverfront stadium. It just doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Question, is there any major disadvantage to being the third team in the LA market as an owner rather than the first.

Say San Diego and Oakland were able to combine to build a $800m stadium, I'm guessing it would still be worthwhile to them to move there with Kroenke already there?

Chargers and Raiders can't share a stadium, needs to be an AFC and NFC team most likely for schedule reasons. Plus rivals? Can't see it. If they want to have two teams they either need to do major realignments, find another NFC team to move, or it'll be the Rams.

 

[Dodgersrf]

If someone's words say one thing, but their deeds say another, I'm going to go with deeds showing true intentions.

And, at least from me, saying "I think such and such is going to happen" shouldn't be viewed as "shooting down" anything else. Sure, anything is still POSSIBLE, but we all should be allowed to give our opinions of what will happen.

But if what I think will happen does happen, I hope St. Louisans get another team ASAP. You're all a good bunch and you deserve it. OTOH, if the team stays the St. Louis Ram, I'll stay a fan even if another team comes to L.A. (especially if it's the Raiders.)

Same here.
Though I would like for the Rams to come back to So Cal. I wouldn't be hurt at all if they stayed in STL. I've made peace that they're in STL long ago.

Besides. I doubt CoachO and hammer are willing to fly to LA to do their camp reports.

Whatever team does come to LA though, I would like the Rams to play them here every couple of years or so.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I don't know if it would be telling or not, I think that as long as construction starts they will let him do his thing. I just think that a lot of the drama is media made, its the hot story this year.

Personally if someone were to ask me about chances the Rams move, I'd say about 70% chance they go. My prediction is that the Rams move, Spanos will try to move in with Kroenke in LA, and Davis moves to St Louis.

Its not really unheard of, having a team leave a market and then another team move in eventually. I don't think the league will agree that the Chargers have a right to the LA market (Dallas didn't have a right to Houston, for example, and they had tons of fans there), and thus I don't see a block being successful. In fact, Spanos may back off once construction starts, so he can buddy up to share the stadium. Maybe not though, hard to say how it goes, but that's my guess.

AEG wants substantial control of the team that they build Farmers Field for, and the city council has already given up on a stadium and voted to go ahead with upgrading the convention center without building the stadium. I'm not sure if Spanos owns 100% of the team, but I don't think he wants to give up 35-49% of the team either way. So moving in with Stan let's him "keep" the LA market (get more than 25% most likely) without breaking the bank or giving up his team. So I'm not sure how much truth there is to those rumors. Similar to most rumors (Stan selling, etc), its probably BS.

Right now we know that Stan wants to build a stadium, and Mayor Butts wants to fast track it. Everything else is pretty much just rumors (other than St Louis working on a stadium plan). We'll find out more next Tuesday. The Chargers statement may just push Butts to work even faster though.

Sounds like the Chargers are stepping it up.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...p-the-heat-on-san-diego-with-letter-to-mayor/

 

[Rams and Gators]

Chargers and Raiders can't share a stadium, needs to be an AFC and NFC team most likely for schedule reasons. Plus rivals? Can't see it. If they want to have two teams they either need to do major realignments, find another NFC team to move, or it'll be the Rams.

Yeah, but we're already assuming the NFL doesn't give a damn about their own rules by allowing Stan to move to LA.

What I'm asking is is there a linear relationship between number of teams in the market and value of a team moving to that market, or does it remain relatively stable up to a point?

 

[ChrisW]

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.

They have been sued in the past, over 20 years ago. But who's saying it would work today? After changes to the laws?

Also, the task force was set up for more than that....don't play it don't so much.

 

[blue4]

I'm for a team here in STL. I'm in favor of just about any scenario where that's a result. But in regards to one particular theory about the Raiders moving here. It seems to make good sense, but to me the key question is, are they even willing to do that? And how strong of an assurance would they need to give before it's taken seriously. It's hard for me to really view that theory seriously without at least some word from Davis.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Raiders in StL? yeeeeesh. That's a concept I would have to take some time to adjust to. This conversation is starting to feel more like an ancient alien astronaut thoery as we go.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah, but we're already assuming the NFL doesn't give a damn about their own rules by allowing Stan to move to LA.

What I'm asking is is there a linear relationship between number of teams in the market and value of a team moving to that market, or does it remain relatively stable up to a point?

Eh, probably a little bit. In terms of the Rams or Raiders, having previously been there, it would hurt the Chargers more than vs an expansion, and even if the Chargers were to get to LA first it wouldn't really help much. I'd say the maximum number of teams a market could realistically be expected to support would be two, but I'd be hestitant to rush two to a new market, rather than having one go, and then seeing how it does. The more teams to a market, the less value each team has, because it's all split up. Especially in a city like LA, that has a lot of fans from other cities already.

They have been sued in the past, over 20 years ago. But who's saying it would work today? After changes to the laws?

Also, the task force was set up for more than that....don't play it don't so much.

Are there changes in the laws that protect them from a lawsuit? Its been brought up that what they changed doesn't seem like much. I haven't read them or looked over them how they were in 1994, so I legitimately don't know. From others it seems there isn't much there that would protect them anymore today. To me it sounded like it was more to reestablish credibility among the fans than anything else.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm for a team here in STL. I'm in favor of just about any scenario where that's a result. But in regards to one particular theory about the Raiders moving here. It seems to make good sense, but to me the key question is, are they even willing to do that? And how strong of an assurance would they need to give before it's taken seriously. It's hard for me to really view that theory seriously without at least some word from Davis.

I'm thinking if St. Louis wants to go ahead with the Riverfront stadium, it could be very popular with any team that wants to move.

Either way this goes, the Rams seem destined to play in a very nice looking stadium.

 

[ZigZagRam]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/17/chargers-question-independence-stadium-task-force/

Per the mayor's office:

Faulconer political adviser Jason Roe, who was named in Fabiani's letter, quickly issued a statement, questioning Fabiani's interest in working cooperatively on a new stadium.

"Ryan Leaf is no longer the worst personnel decision in Charger’s history," said Roe, who has sat in on both of the task force's closed-door meetings to date.

"In 14 years of failure, Mark Fabiani has done nothing but make excuses, lay blame, and pick fights. The Mayor’s advisory committee is just that - the Mayor’s advisory committee and Mark doesn’t get to dictate how the Mayor organizes his advisory group. Rather than work constructively with the committee to find solutions, Mark’s back to his normal routine of picking fights to avoid progress."

Damn!

 

[ChrisW]

Are there changes in the laws that protect them from a lawsuit? Its been brought up that what they changed doesn't seem like much. I haven't read them or looked over them how they were in 1994, so I legitimately don't know. From others it seems there isn't much there that would protect them anymore today. To me it sounded like it was more to reestablish credibility among the fans than anything else.

I don't know, but I'm getting tired of all the statements made by the NFL regarding upholding the laws is a dog and pony show.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know, but I'm getting tired of all the statements made by the NFL regarding upholding the laws is a dog and pony show.

I think part of the issue is that they made them intentionally vague and open for their own personal interpretation, giving them plenty of wiggle room on the matter. So if the Rams do move, there will be plenty of people saying that they didn't uphold the bylaws, but the NFL can vote yes and say that the Rams did to their satisfaction. Similar to Goodell saying that he was satisfied with Kroenke's efforts in St. Louis thus far, most fans in St Louis would say no way, and while I believe he has done more than a lot of St Louis fans claim, I don't think he's ever really been serious about working with St Louis, because he's had his eye on LA for a while, and thus I wouldn't say he's moving to LA due to any last resort or anything. However the NFL can make any claim they want to say he's done enough to justify a vote because they intentionally made that requirement subjective to give themselves freedom.

 

[ChrisW]

I think part of the issue is that they made them intentionally vague and open for their own personal interpretation, giving them plenty of wiggle room on the matter. So if the Rams do move, there will be plenty of people saying that they didn't uphold the bylaws, but the NFL can vote yes and say that the Rams did to their satisfaction. Similar to Goodell saying that he was satisfied with Kroenke's efforts in St. Louis thus far, most fans in St Louis would say no way, and while I believe he has done more than a lot of St Louis fans claim, I don't think he's ever really been serious about working with St Louis, because he's had his eye on LA for a while, and thus I wouldn't say he's moving to LA due to any last resort or anything. However the NFL can make any claim they want to say he's done enough to justify a vote because they intentionally made that requirement subjective to give themselves freedom.

As long as there's a stadium plan on the table in STL he hasn't resolved all efforts. Goodell made comments that Kroenke was working with STL during the arbitration. But once that was done the Stadium plan is a whole new can of worms. The owners know how much of a black eye they would get moving out of STL with a real fair and fast stadium plan on the table for one of their owners in a centrally downtown location.

Every statement made by the NFL has been "there will be a vote." Or "before anyone gets into LA there will be multiple votes." I guess that's when we can finally get rid of this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[bluecoconuts]

As long as there's a stadium plan on the table in STL he hasn't resolved all efforts. Goodell made comments that Kroenke was working with STL during the arbitration. But once that was done the Stadium plan is a whole new can of worms. The owners know how much of a black eye they would get moving out of STL with a real fair and fast stadium plan on the table for one of their owners in a centrally downtown location.

Every statement made by the NFL has been "there will be a vote." Or "before anyone gets into LA there will be multiple votes." I guess that's when we can finally get rid of this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again though, that comes down to intentionally vague to allow wiggle room. While fans will say "There's an offer on the table!" Kroenke can say "It's not enough", and the NFL can agree with him because they have the wiggle room to do so. Some owners may not want to set the precedent that as long as there is any offer they're stuck in the city they're in, some may agree that he hasn't and look to block. Either way though, they have plenty of wiggle room to vote any way they want and be able to justify said vote.

The owners have allowed plenty of teams to move, only to have another team fill that market later on, so I don't think they're too worried about that. Look at Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore, St Louis, etc. All cities that had one team leave and another team come in. They would have a lot of issues moving to LA in the future if they block the best effort they've had since the city was vacated as well, how could city officials or teams work at fixing the issue if this one, which is a slam dunk, gets turned down? There's pros and cons both ways, and thus they will need to weigh which they want more. If they want both, then it may end up being a Rams move and another team goes to St Louis later to fill the void. If St Louis says "The Rams or nothing" then they may shoot themselves in the foot though.

Again, having it come to a vote doesn't mean much. I've always read the news of Kroenke having it go to a vote as a no brainer, it gives the NFL the chance to say "Yep, it's all good" and then everyone comes out looking okay by the majority of NFL fans. Sure, St. Louis fans may not be happy, but the majority of fans will likely be okay with that outcome. However if the Rams are blocked from moving I don't think for a second they start writing checks to St Louis. I think either Kroenke says "Okay, we'll try again next year." knowing that attendance will plummet at the news, making his argument easier, or he'll just go ahead and go, threatening a lawsuit against the league. If the Stadium opens in 2018 as planned, the Stan Kroenke team (I don't completely rule out anything, including selling the Rams and buying a new team, but I highly highly doubt that'll happen) will be there.

 

[dbrooks25]

He requested an extension, that was it. The extension ends in a few months, and it should be good then, according to those in the know.

I get that part, but according to those in the know he was supposed to transfer the teams to his son when he first bought the team. My point is, these next few months could go by with Kroenke still owning the Nuggets and Avalanche. If he happens to still own them come this time next year and his relocation request (if that's his true intention) is shot down by the owners do you think he will fight it? He has huge fucking balls if he decides to do so.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I get that part, but according to those in the know he was supposed to transfer the teams to his son when he first bought the team. My point is, these next few months could go by with Kroenke still owning the Nuggets and Avalanche. If he happens to still own them come this time next year and his relocation request (if that's his true intention) is shot down by the owners do you think he will fight it? He has huge freaking balls if he decides to do so.

The most recent reports say he'll have it all done in a few months. He got a 12 month extension in October of last year, saying that he needed to work things out estate wise, but I think I heard them say sometime this summer he should have that settled. He wont still own them by this time next year unless he gets another extension, but all reports indicate he wont need one, so that's a huge if. However to answer your question IF he still owned them, and IF they said no, then I would assume it changes nothing. IF the stadium in LA is done in 2018, he'll be there, unless his intention all along is to build it for someone else, which again I can't imagine that scenario being realistic.

 

[Boffo97]

Personally, I'm still of the mindset that the whole idea of Kroenke transferring those teams to his son is a transparent facade where he's going to really remain in control of the teams, but he'll appear to be satisfying the bylaws.

But maybe I'm an idiot. (And yes, I'm giving whoever steps up a free one, and am glad Les doesn't post in this thread.)