New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[-X-]

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/02/17/st-louis-rams-stadium

Missouri’s Governor Jay Nixon is working feverishly to keep the St. Louis Rams in the city as the football team’s owner, Stan Kroenke, threatens to return the team to Los Angeles. With the quality of the Rams’ current stadium, the Edward Jones Dome, at the heart of the dispute, officials are touting a plan to spend potentially $400 million on a new one. But opposition is rising as locals recall the unbalanced deal they got two decades ago when the Rams first arrived in St. Louis. The city is still making payments on the Ram’s old stadium. Jeremy Hobson speaks with St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter David Hunn about the ongoing dispute, and with economist Allen Sanderson about the economic impacts of these mega-domes.

[av]http://audio.wbur.org/storage/2015/02/hereandnow_0217_st-louis-rams-stadium.mp3[/av]

 

[-X-]

On the heels of San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's new stadium task force being announced, the San Diego Chargers are giving the city a warning.

Succeed, or else.

Mark Fabiani, who serves as the team's leader on the stadium issue, published an extensive outline on the team's website directed at the mayor and the task force. Noting that the Alex Spanos family has spent more than $15 million in unsuccessful attempts to find the Chargers a new stadium over the last 14 years, Fabiani and his team are understandably concerned this newest task force will result in more failure.

"It should not be enough to suggest a plan that might succeed under perfectly controlled laboratory conditions—but that is unlikely to succeed in the real world of San Diego politics," he wrote.

Should the task force prove unsuccessful (a likely result, according toFabiani, who claims there is currently no publicly acceptable solution to the stadium issue), the Chargers are "keeping a close eye on the developments in L.A."

In January, it was announced that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenkehad made plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, California. That's a potentially crippling threat to the Chargers, according to Fabiani, seeing as how 25 percent of their ticket base hails from the L.A./Orange County market.

He put it simply:

It would not be fair to the Chargers—a team that has worked for 14 years to find a stadium solution in San Diego County—to allow other teams that themselves abandoned the LA market to now return and gut the Chargers' local revenue stream.​

We do not have a choice but to also monitor and evaluate our options (in LA). Simply put, it would be irresponsible for the Chargers not to be taking every possible step to protect the future of the franchise.​

Bleacher Report's Jason Cole provided a copy of a letter that Fabianialso wrote to the mayor's office, noting that it's quite obvious the relationship between the two sides is not a healthy one:

View: https://twitter.com/JasonPhilCole/status/567788481355608067

Fabiani and the Chargers seem to have little belief a legitimate stadium proposal is even possible at this point. He said the team is continuing to work to find a solution, but with Los Angeles being a market that will likely see a new team sooner rather than later, it would appear the Chargers' future in San Diego is murky at best.

"As the mayor said, the situation in Los Angeles has never been more real," said Adam Day, chairman of the advisory group, via the Los Angeles Times' Sam Farmer.

It's safe to say the pressure is on for the new task force.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-regarding-stadium-hint-at-potential-la-exit

 

[ReddingRam]

For all those clamouring that SK needs to heed to the "rules" set forth by the NFL .... look no further than Al Davis and Jerry Jones. Both took on the NFL in court and won. Precedents have been set ...Stan can and will move the team if that is what he wants to do. The league's track record in anti-trust cases involving owner's rights is not that good. They cannot FORCE a team to do anything, if said team is doing what is in "their best interests" and not legally under contract to stay somewhere.

I think we just need to let this play out. My interest is not "what the NFL" will let him do ... it's what HE does. I'm wondering if he plans to sell the team? because other than that, I see no way that he stays in St. Louis if he actually starts building the Inglewood stadium.

 

[RamBill]

Tipsheet: Rams give Chargers some stadium leverage
• By Jeff Gordon

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_0b169521-e3eb-596e-9e3a-7c1bbc5934e5.html

The San Diego Chargers have tried and tried and tried to get a new stadium built. Now Rams owner Stan Kroenke has given the franchise the leverage it has lacked to make that happen.

Chargers attorney Mark Fabiani made that abundantly clear while meeting with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's nine-member stadium advisory group this week. He claimed the Rams and/or Raiders returning to Los Angeles could cost the Chargers 25 percent of its current fan base.

"It would not be fair to the Chargers -- a team that has worked for 14 years to find a stadium solution in San Diego County -- to allow other teams that themselves abandoned the L.A. market to now return and gut the Chargers' local revenue stream," Fabiani said, according to a statement released to media members.

Qualcomm Stadium is 48 years old. A new stadium will be expensive -- perhaps more than the $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion projected by city officials.

Gaining approval for public support of this project would be very difficult. Any proposal requiring two-thirds approval would have little hope of passing.

Like St. Louis, San Diego needs to find an answer that doesn't rely on a successful vote.

Fabiani called on the panel to devise a real stadium solution, not a doomed proposal that would merely alleviate political pressure on those involved.

"The Chargers do not intend to waste years of time and millions of dollars on a proposal that city leaders simply do not have the capacity to actually implement," he said. "In short, a proposal that looks good on paper should not be sufficient. What we all need is a proposal that our city government has the capacity to actually implement."

Fabiani said the Chargers "have no intention of quietly participating in any effort to provide political cover for elected officials . . . Simply put, we have no intention of allowing the Chargers franchise to be manipulated for political cover -- and we will call out any elected official who tries to do so."

So the fun has begun. As long as St. Louis can devise a workable plan while San Diego and Oakland fail to do the same, this market has at a chance to remain in the NFL.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Appearances. Why would he be overseeing the sale of a team, that's not his job, is it?

Clearly he's overseeing something.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Clearly he's overseeing something.

Yeah, he's keeping tabs on the stadium development. Just like he's keeping tabs on the LA development. That's his job, to check on markets, and help bring a team to LA.

 

[ChrisW]

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.

If by wiggle room you mean interpretation. Then I'll agree with you on this.+

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, I'll counter with: What happens if they allow the Rams to move with such a workable deal on the table and moving forward? Is the LA market worth that much to the league to send the message to cities that, "it doesn't matter if you pay for half of a brand new stadium in a downtown location...we'll just move the team to a bigger market."

 

[ChrisW]

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.)

The problem arises when he pays his taxes. Just gifting the teams to his son will incur all the taxes that go along with it. If Kroenke is found to have paid those, then his interests really haven't been divested.

 

[Boffo97]

Again, I'll counter with: What happens if they allow the Rams to move with such a workable deal on the table and moving forward? Is the LA market worth that much to the league to send the message to cities that, "it doesn't matter if you pay for half of a brand new stadium in a downtown location...we'll just move the team to a bigger market."

I think the League would be MUCH more willing to send that message than to set a precedent that one day could come back to bite ANY of them that a team can be absolutely locked in by a city no matter how much that they want to move, as well as not wanting the ugly fight with Kroenke.

And again, definitions will vary as to what is a "workable deal". There is AMPLE room for Kroenke to disagree that it is such. I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong, but the Rams weren't asked to pay hundreds of millions to build the EJD.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If by wiggle room you mean interpretation. Then I'll agree with you on this.+



Again, I'll counter with: What happens if they allow the Rams to move with such a workable deal on the table and moving forward? Is the LA market worth that much to the league to send the message to cities that, "it doesn't matter if you pay for half of a brand new stadium in a downtown location...we'll just move the team to a bigger market."

It may seem workable to us, but to Kroenke it may be so far off what he wants, he feels why bother? If it's not even close for him then it's not really workable right? Again, that's more according to him, not us. One of the NFL reporters said that the league did feel that LA was more important than St Louis in terms of getting a deal made. How true that is I don't know, but he has connections and seems to think that is the case.

Although I don't know if it would make cities feel like they shouldn't bother, it could send the message that playing politics and waiting until zero hour approaches isn't a good strategy, which works in the owners favor. There's a lot of ways this can all play out. If cities don't want to play ball, there will always be some that are.

I'd say that wiggle room and interpretation are pretty much the same thing. As far as I can tell its worded so they can rule anyway they want and be okay by the guidelines.

 

[Boffo97]

We need more cities keeping an eye on this to make it as confusing as possible!

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article10541516.html

Keep an eye on the St. Louis stadium deal
02/17/2015 9:00 AM

State funds for the Truman Complex and Bartle Hall will be tucked back in Gov. Jay Nixon’s proposed budget after most of the usual $5 million annual allocation was inexplicably left out.

That’s only appropriate, given past promises by Missouri officials and past actions by local voters.

Jackson Countians in 2006 approved a three-eighths-cent sales tax to raise $500 million to upgrade Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums. The Chiefs and Royals pledged $100 million. The state said it would continue the longtime practice of sending $3 million a year for sports complex expenses.

In addition, the state has allocated $2 million annually toward expenses at Bartle Hall, which Kansas City taxpayers expanded 20 years ago.

Think of it this way: The state’s $5 million is its investment in two stadiums and a convention center that bring in millions of dollars in revenues annually for Missouri and local governments.

The “missing” money in Nixon’s budget caught the attention of Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders and others in this area because of what’s happening in St. Louis.

Many officials there hope Nixon and the General Assembly will be open to offering a large package of financial incentives to help build a $1 billion riverfront stadium for a National Football League team. It’s all part of the suddenly desperate bid to keep the St. Louis Rams in town, even though owner Stan Kroenke is involved in a stadium-building effort near Los Angeles.

However, any public funding deal worked out with St. Louis needs to be fair to Kansas City.

The NFL team — whether it’s the Rams or another one — needs to chip in significant support. The people of St. Louis also should have to approve a subsidy for the project.

The state likely will chip in some state tax credits, as it did for the Truman Sports Complex, and an annual appropriation along the lines of the $12 million a year it uses to help maintain the Edward Jones Dome.

The St. Louis project has a long way to go toward final approval. But Kansas City officials should keep close tabs on it to make sure taxpayers here and their state tax dollars don’t become part of an overly generous deal to keep the NFL in St. Louis.

 

[RamFan503]

it wasn't the city of St. Louis who declined to upgrade the dome, it was the CVC and they are a completely separate entity. The city of St. Louis got involved by coming forth with the stadium proposal.

Isn't it the state that came forward? And isn't the CVC also part of the city gov't - not the state or county? If it is completely separate, who is Stan actually supposed to be responding to or proposing counters to? When you negotiate, you are generally negotiating with a known party. I'm not sure any of us know what this aspect really means. A market is one thing. But who are you negotiating with?

It's been widely reported that Kroenke and the Rams will honor the league's decision when it comes to this matter.

I have never once seen where Kroenke or anyone in his camp has said he will do this. I've seen where others have said he understands the rules and such but....

I thought they just said he wouldn't go rouge and move without bringing it up for a vote.

Again - I may have missed something but I don't know that he's even said this much.

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.

My understanding is that he was granted an extension due to the legal, estate, and tax ramifications involved and that it is not just a simple matter of transferring ownership to his son. I think it is clear that the other owners are not going to ask him to lose millions just to hurry up the process. I don't know - I just suspect this is the case.

The problem arises when he pays his taxes. Just gifting the teams to his son will incur all the taxes that go along with it. If Kroenke is found to have paid those, then his interests really haven't been divested.

I think this is at the heart of the extension and why the transfer hasn't been completed as of yet. At least this meshes with what I have read.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again - I may have missed something but I don't know that he's even said this much.

You're correct, he hasn't actually said a word, likely because he hasn't officially said he was looking to move yet. Him not going "rouge" and having it go to a vote has all been speculation from those who are said to be close to him.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm a WoW player, and have participated off and on on their forums... and I've learned there that rouges are overpowdered.

 

[RamFan503]

You're correct, he hasn't actually said a word, likely because he hasn't officially said he was looking to move yet. Him not going "rouge" and having it go to a vote has all been speculation from those who are said to be close to him.

Speculating? How dare they? Good thing I never do that,

 

[Rams and Gators]

For all those clamouring that SK needs to heed to the "rules" set forth by the NFL .... look no further than Al Davis and Jerry Jones. Both took on the NFL in court and won. Precedents have been set ...Stan can and will move the team if that is what he wants to do. The league's track record in anti-trust cases involving owner's rights is not that good. They cannot FORCE a team to do anything, if said team is doing what is in "their best interests" and not legally under contract to stay somewhere.

I think we just need to let this play out. My interest is not "what the NFL" will let him do ... it's what HE does. I'm wondering if he plans to sell the team? because other than that, I see no way that he stays in St. Louis if he actually starts building the Inglewood stadium.

The problem is the entire NFL is based upon one simple rule, the interests of the league are more important than the interests of the individual owner. As you say the league can't force a team to do anything, it's essentially a house of cards. You let one owner serve his individual interests without recourse you better believe every other owner is going to serve his best interests and expect the same treatment.

I'm Jerry Jones, I've been abiding by the league's revenue sharing, draft and salary cap laws for years despite the knowledge that if I didn't I'd dominate the league in income, and I'd be able to buy myself a championship every year, do you really think I'm not going to take advantage of this new league philosophy of allowing owners to serve their own personal interest?

 

[TSFH Fan]

I'm Jerry Jones, I've been abiding by the league's revenue sharing, draft and salary cap laws for years despite the knowledge that if I didn't I'd dominate the league in income, and I'd be able to buy myself a championship every year, do you really think I'm not going to take advantage of this new league philosophy of allowing owners to serve their own personal interest?

Well, I don't think anyone is going to say that Jerry never took advantage of ambiguity in league rules to serve his own personal interest. For example JJ got a lot of cash for making Pepsi the official cola for Cowboy Stadium while Coke was the official cola of the NFL:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciaj...-in-the-growing-womens-sports-apparel-market/

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/07/b...boys-stadium-ousts-coke-despite-nfl-deal.html

 

[TSFH Fan]

How about some ROD bucks to research a possible new ROD NFL correspondent?


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25071922/look-raiders-owner-mark-davis-hangs-out-at-la-strip-club

LOOK: Raiders owner Mark Davis hangs out at LA strip club
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
February 17, 2015 4:50 pm ET

Mark Davis seems to have a favorite hangout in LA. (Instagram/Sams_Hofbrau)

It's not easy being Raiders owner Mark Davis: Your team has the worst stadium in football, you haven't had winning season since 2002 and you don't even know where your going to be located next year.

Actually, scratch all that because sometimes it is easy being Mark Davis, like the other day when he got to hold a business meeting at a strip club.

Sam's Hofbrau, an adult cabaret in Los Angeles, recently posted a picture of Davis on their Instagram page.

Next to the picture, the cabaret posted the caption, "Look who stopped by tonight for some #Viptreatment #MarkDavis Principal Owner of the Oakland Raiders. Thank You!!!"

Now, Davis hanging out at a strip club in Los Angeles doesn't mean Raiders fans in Oakland need to start panicking about a possible move -- or does it mean exactly that?

In Davis' picture, the cabaret also included the hashtag #LA next to Oakland Raiders, along with the hashtag #BusinessMeetings.

The woman in the picture, a hostess at Sam's, was asked on Instagram why Davis was at the cabaret, she was also asked if he talked about the Raiders moving to Los Angeles.

Her response?

"He's a personal friend of the owners. Very sweet and very humble and possibilities are definitely there. Yes he's in LA for something like that."

If an adult cabaret employee in Los Angeles broke the news of a Raiders move to LA, that would definitely be right up there with the time that Rob Lowe "broke" the news that Peyton Manning was retiring.

Rob Lowe✔@RobLowe Follow
Hearing my fave, #18 Peyton Manning will not return to #NFL. Wow. #Colts
12:15 PM - 18 Jan 2012
2,096 Retweets 123 favorites

Anyway, next time you're out in public this year, keep your eyes peeled for Davis because he seems to be everywhere. Over the past month alone, he's been spotted at Hooters and boarding a Southwest flight in Denver.

John Breech@johnbreech Follow
NFL owners are just like us! They fly @SouthwestAir. #Raiders http://cbsprt.co/1BzM4zH
10:26 AM - 7 Jan 2015
5 Retweets 4 favorites

 

[blue4]

Well, I don't think anyone is going to say that Jerry never took advantage of ambiguity in league rules to serve his own personal interest. For example JJ got a lot of cash for making Pepsi the official cola for Cowboy Stadium while Coke was the official cola of the NFL:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciaj...-in-the-growing-womens-sports-apparel-market/

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/07/b...boys-stadium-ousts-coke-despite-nfl-deal.html

He takes advantage of ambiguity. This would be outright disobeying bylaws. If the league can't force you to comply with moving bylaws, how can they force people to share revenue? Everything that makes the NFL a parity league, everything that helps teams like Buffalo competitive with Dallas relies on the interest of the owners being second to the league's.

 

[blue4]

How about some ROD bucks to research a possible new ROD NFL correspondent?


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25071922/look-raiders-owner-mark-davis-hangs-out-at-la-strip-club

LOOK: Raiders owner Mark Davis hangs out at LA strip club
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
February 17, 2015 4:50 pm ET

View attachment 5430
Mark Davis seems to have a favorite hangout in LA. (Instagram/Sams_Hofbrau)

It's not easy being Raiders owner Mark Davis: Your team has the worst stadium in football, you haven't had winning season since 2002 and you don't even know where your going to be located next year.

Actually, scratch all that because sometimes it is easy being Mark Davis, like the other day when he got to hold a business meeting at a strip club.

Sam's Hofbrau, an adult cabaret in Los Angeles, recently posted a picture of Davis on their Instagram page.

Next to the picture, the cabaret posted the caption, "Look who stopped by tonight for some #Viptreatment #MarkDavis Principal Owner of the Oakland Raiders. Thank You!!!"

Now, Davis hanging out at a strip club in Los Angeles doesn't mean Raiders fans in Oakland need to start panicking about a possible move -- or does it mean exactly that?

In Davis' picture, the cabaret also included the hashtag #LA next to Oakland Raiders, along with the hashtag #BusinessMeetings.

The woman in the picture, a hostess at Sam's, was asked on Instagram why Davis was at the cabaret, she was also asked if he talked about the Raiders moving to Los Angeles.

Her response?

"He's a personal friend of the owners. Very sweet and very humble and possibilities are definitely there. Yes he's in LA for something like that."

If an adult cabaret employee in Los Angeles broke the news of a Raiders move to LA, that would definitely be right up there with the time that Rob Lowe "broke" the news that Peyton Manning was retiring.

Rob Lowe✔@RobLowe Follow
Hearing my fave, #18 Peyton Manning will not return to #NFL. Wow. #Colts
12:15 PM - 18 Jan 2012
2,096 Retweets 123 favorites

Anyway, next time you're out in public this year, keep your eyes peeled for Davis because he seems to be everywhere. Over the past month alone, he's been spotted at Hooters and boarding a Southwest flight in Denver.

View attachment 5431

John Breech@johnbreech Follow
NFL owners are just like us! They fly @SouthwestAir. #Raiders http://cbsprt.co/1BzM4zH
10:26 AM - 7 Jan 2015
5 Retweets 4 favorites

One word Davis. Sauget.