New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Sum1]

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 biggest part of the reason Davis won is because the NFL didn't have firm rules on the matter. This is why the NFL is trying to avoid any issues...if they can work something out that makes everyone happy they won't have to worry about it.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Just one observation....

Regarding the rules that current exist in the NFL...

These are facts...
* Like not being able to move a team just to enhance/improve your revenue/profit/value
* Any relocation has to be approved by a specific number of owners (majority)

Those are facts. We have no precident to show where they have been ignored or overruled.

Then, there's the subjective part about exhausting all efforts in the existing market.

When faced with these facts and what, in my eyes, is a failure to meet the subjective clause, some fans want to sumarily dismiss that with law suits and going rogue.

At least to me, that's not a strong enough rebuttal.

I mean, on one side there are facts.

On the other side, there are theories.

This situation is unprecedented in the history of the league. To tie prior events to it seems unrealistic.

Again, I go back to the facts. They are all I have right now.

As a note: I live neither in or near L.A. or STL and have never lived in or near either city but have been a Rams fan for close to 50 years now.

Just relaying how I see these arguments and my impressiion of their validity in my mind.

Carry on, now...

 

[Thordaddy]

Ya know if I was in charge of franchise placement for the league without a rooting interest I think I'd move the Rams and Chargers into Stans new stadium and the Jags to STL.The divisional alignments make too much sense to deny.
I live about half way between StL and Nashville and the trip from each of those cities to the other can be a day round trip pretty easily

 

[dbrooks25]

Just one observation....

Regarding the rules that current exist in the NFL...

These are facts...
* Like not being able to move a team just to enhance/improve your revenue/profit/value
* Any relocation has to be approved by a specific number of owners (majority)

Those are facts. We have no precident to show where they have been ignored or overruled.

Then, there's the subjective part about exhausting all efforts in the existing market.

When faced with these facts and what, in my eyes, is a failure to meet the subjective clause, some fans want to sumarily dismiss that with law suits and going rogue.

At least to me, that's not a strong enough rebuttal.

I mean, on one side there are facts.

On the other side, there are theories.

This situation is unprecedented in the history of the league. To tie prior events to it seems unrealistic.

Again, I go back to the facts. They are all I have right now.

As a note: I live neither in or near L.A. or STL and have never lived in or near either city but have been a Rams fan for close to 50 years now.

Just relaying how I see these arguments and my impressiion of their validity in my mind.

Carry on, now...

Yep, it goes back to that wishful thinking part for the pro LA folks, imo.

 

[Prime Time]

Ya know if I was in charge of franchise placement for the league without a rooting interest I think I'd move the Rams and Chargers into Stans new stadium and the Jags to STL.The divisional alignments make too much sense to deny.
I live about half way between StL and Nashville and the trip from each of those cities to the other can be a day round trip pretty easily

I get your drift. I'd like the Rams to move to Cumberland, MD but Stan won't return my calls. :shades:

 

[Thordaddy]

I get your drift. I'd like the Rams to move to Cumberland, MD but Stan won't return my calls. :shades:

It would reduce travel costs for three divisions and encourage more visiting fan ticket sales, so the logic of it will probably preclude it.

I've always thought it'd be cool to put the Captain Moe in on KY Lake cross over to Lake Barkley run it to the Cumberland river to Nashville on a Fri. party in Nashville Sat and take in a StL vs Titans game Sunday and get back Monday afternoon.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Just one observation....

Regarding the rules that current exist in the NFL...

These are facts...
* Like not being able to move a team just to enhance/improve your revenue/profit/value
* Any relocation has to be approved by a specific number of owners (majority)

Those are facts. We have no precident to show where they have been ignored or overruled.

Then, there's the subjective part about exhausting all efforts in the existing market.

When faced with these facts and what, in my eyes, is a failure to meet the subjective clause, some fans want to sumarily dismiss that with law suits and going rogue.

At least to me, that's not a strong enough rebuttal.

I mean, on one side there are facts.

On the other side, there are theories.

This situation is unprecedented in the history of the league. To tie prior events to it seems unrealistic.

Again, I go back to the facts. They are all I have right now.

As a note: I live neither in or near L.A. or STL and have never lived in or near either city but have been a Rams fan for close to 50 years now.

Just relaying how I see these arguments and my impressiion of their validity in my mind.

Carry on, now...

The bylaws in terms of moving are vague, and allow owners to easily vote anyway they want given each unique proposal in front of them. We DO have precedent that moving bylaws can be ignored, and teams can move without support of the league, the Rams being in St Louis right now is proof of that. They initially voted against the move, and then Georgia threatened a lawsuit, and they said okay.

So those would be facts. Given that there doesn't seem to be any major changes in relocation bylaws, that would protect the NFL today that they didnt get then, thus these examples still stand today.

Facts would be that Stan is trying to build a stadium in LA, a theory would be that he wants to sell the team and move a different team there, or he's building it for someone else, etc etc.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Yep, it goes back to that wishful thinking part for the pro LA folks, imo.

Well, I'm not saying that, my intent was to try to seperate facts from theories.

Just how I see things.

 

[Rmfnlt]

The bylaws in terms of moving are vague, and allow owners to easily vote anyway they want given each unique proposal in front of them. We DO have precedent that moving bylaws can be ignored, and teams can move without support of the league, the Rams being in St Louis right now is proof of that. They initially voted against the move, and then Georgia threatened a lawsuit, and they said okay.

So those would be facts. Given that there doesn't seem to be any major changes in relocation bylaws, that would protect the NFL today that they didnt get then, thus these examples still stand today.

Facts would be that Stan is trying to build a stadium in LA, a theory would be that he wants to sell the team and move a different team there, or he's building it for someone else, etc etc.

So the by-laws were exactly the same when the Rams moved to STL as they are today?

I'm not sure... haven't read then. But I have read reports consisting of what I wrote about above. Again, those are the facts as we sit here today. Everything else is theory until (and unless) it all happens.

To me, pointing to something that happened over 20 years ago and saying the same will happen today is hard for me to swallow. A lot has changed.

Yes, it is a fact Kroenke is trying to build d stadium. How much you can deduce from that is up to each person.

I'm just gonna stick with facts for now.

No need to reply to my post here... no offense intended, but I know where you stand and no amount of typing on your part is gonna change my mind...

The only thing that will change my mind is when concrete, actual events start to unfold that paint a picture I can actually see.

Right now, it's as if I tried to paint the picture (and, trust me, I cannot paint one lick).

 

[drasconis]

We DO have precedent that moving bylaws can be ignored, and teams can move without support of the league.

There is NO precedent in that at all. No case was developed in court regarding the rewritten rules, no judgement rendered...thus no precedent. There is evidence that the league would rather not risk going to court, but that is NOT precedent...at least not legal precedent that would determine a court case (note that out of court decisions/agreements hold no precedental strength in court).

At most you can believe that the league can be bought out of a internal decision, but there is nothing on the present rule to set a legal precedent or say how a case would definitely come out.

 

[Rmfnlt]

There is NO precedent in that at all. No case was developed in court regarding the rewritten rules, no judgement rendered...thus no precedent. There is evidence that the league would rather not risk going to court, but that is NOT precedent...at least not legal precedent that would determine a court case (note that out of court decisions/agreements hold no precedental strength in court).

At most you can believe that the league can be bought out of a internal decision, but there is nothing on the present rule to set a legal precedent or say how a case would definitely come out.

I guess that's my point.

Find another situation exactly like this one... with all the moving parts...

* Multiple Cities
* Multiple teams
* Multiple staduims

If you can find one and apply it to what might happen in this situation, then I'll believe in the precedent.

Personally, I don't think you'll be able to find such a case... this stuff is "unprecedented".

 

[dbrooks25]

Well, I'm not saying that, my intent was to try to seperate facts from theories.

Just how I see things.

Oh, I'm aware you're not saying that, but that's the way things are going.

 

[dbrooks25]

The bylaws in terms of moving are vague, and allow owners to easily vote anyway they want given each unique proposal in front of them. We DO have precedent that moving bylaws can be ignored, and teams can move without support of the league, the Rams being in St Louis right now is proof of that. They initially voted against the move, and then Georgia threatened a lawsuit, and they said okay.

So those would be facts. Given that there doesn't seem to be any major changes in relocation bylaws, that would protect the NFL today that they didnt get then, thus these examples still stand today.

Facts would be that Stan is trying to build a stadium in LA, a theory would be that he wants to sell the team and move a different team there, or he's building it for someone else, etc etc.

It's also a theory that he's building it for the Rams since he hasn't come right out and said it. We can point to "signs" all we want, but until Kroenke actually announces his intentions, everything is based on theories, aren't they?

 

[dbrooks25]

So the by-laws were exactly the same when the Rams moved to STL as they are today?

I'm not sure... haven't read then. But I have read reports consisting of what I wrote about above. Again, those are the facts as we sit here today. Everything else is theory until (and unless) it all happens.

To me, pointing to something that happened over 20 years ago and saying the same will happen today is hard for me to swallow. A lot has changed.

Yes, it is a fact Kroenke is trying to build d stadium. How much you can deduce from that is up to each person.

I'm just gonna stick with facts for now.

No need to reply to my post here... no offense intended, but I know where you stand and no amount of typing on your part is gonna change my mind...

The only thing that will change my mind is when concrete, actual events start to unfold that paint a picture I can actually see.

Right now, it's as if I tried to paint the picture (and, trust me, I cannot paint one lick).

Nope, the bylaws aren't the same. Even thought I can't remember exactly what was said in the Amy Trask article, I believe she even stated how the bylaws are different than they were back when teams were moving all over the place in the 90s and how that would be difficult to do today with today's bylaws in place. Since she has been there and done that with the Raiders, I definitely value her opinion above the "Stan will sue and win" opinions floating around here. Anything can happen, so this will be a very long wait and see game.

 

[dbrooks25]

So the by-laws were exactly the same when the Rams moved to STL as they are today?

I'm not sure... haven't read then. But I have read reports consisting of what I wrote about above. Again, those are the facts as we sit here today. Everything else is theory until (and unless) it all happens.

To me, pointing to something that happened over 20 years ago and saying the same will happen today is hard for me to swallow. A lot has changed.

Yes, it is a fact Kroenke is trying to build d stadium. How much you can deduce from that is up to each person.

I'm just gonna stick with facts for now.

No need to reply to my post here... no offense intended, but I know where you stand and no amount of typing on your part is gonna change my mind...

The only thing that will change my mind is when concrete, actual events start to unfold that paint a picture I can actually see.

Right now, it's as if I tried to paint the picture (and, trust me, I cannot paint one lick).

I agree with this, wholeheartedly.

 

[Watercop]

I recently made a bad decision and looked at the Rams site on the PD. There was a "discussion" regarding Stan's property in Inglewood and pro Rams to LA and pro Rams in Stl. were arguing about the financial windfall that Stan would gain if such a move were to happen. One poster, (and I don't remember who it was) stated that it was possible that Stan was trying to get Inglewood to rezone so that a Walmart could finally be built there. The more that I thought about it, the more that possibility made sense to me. A huge "Super Walmart" in that region could rake in more in profits every day than an NFL team could make in a season. The construction costs would likely be less than a third of what a new football stadium would cost, maintenance costs would be considerably less and instead of 8 regular season games, a couple of preseason games and various special events scheduled throughout the year, they could rake in the profits 24/7/365. I believe that SK is not involved with the Walmart daily operations, but it could be a financial windfall if he could get that to happen. I would think that it would be hugely more profitable than owning an NFL franchise, but it would depend on SK's ego and the ownership of another professional sports team. Am I missing something here or does this seem reasonable to anyone else?

 

[RamFan503]

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:

And the fact that he is the only owner to not have to share revenues from Cowgirls jersey and apparel sales. It does seem that he is ignoring the rules in the form of revenues and that IS the most important aspect to league bylaws.

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?

Good question. I suspect it has something to do with how they skirt the anti-trust laws and therefore it is in the interest of all owners. I would also guess that only having teams in NY, LA, Chicago, and a couple other large metro areas would reduce their overall profits. But baseball does it so.... ???

The biggest part of the reason Davis won is because the NFL didn't have firm rules on the matter.

I'm not saying the rules haven't been changed but I would like to see how. We keep hearing people alluding to that but I have yet to see anything that actually states what those changes are. It seems that they must have done something or else people like Ms Trask wouldn't be just outright saying it. Of course she is part of the CBS media group now so.....

These are facts...
* Like not being able to move a team just to enhance/improve your revenue/profit/value
* Any relocation has to be approved by a specific number of owners (majority)

Those are facts. We have no precident to show where they have been ignored or overruled.

Al Davis. Those rules in particular were there at the time. I think the info is here in this thread but in any case, Al apparently was 1 for 2 in suing the NFL with one settlement. Guess that makes him a 500 hitter.

So the by-laws were exactly the same when the Rams moved to STL as they are today?

I'm not sure... haven't read then. But I have read reports consisting of what I wrote about above. Again, those are the facts as we sit here today. Everything else is theory until (and unless) it all happens.

To me, pointing to something that happened over 20 years ago and saying the same will happen today is hard for me to swallow. A lot has changed.

Yes, it is a fact Kroenke is trying to build d stadium. How much you can deduce from that is up to each person.

I'm just gonna stick with facts for now.

No need to reply to my post here... no offense intended, but I know where you stand and no amount of typing on your part is gonna change my mind...

The only thing that will change my mind is when concrete, actual events start to unfold that paint a picture I can actually see.

Sure wish I could find what specific changes have been made to the bylaws since the 90's. The only thing I have been able to find is words to the effect of them making it more difficult to move and that attempts by Congress to enact laws to prevent it have failed. Other than that - dunno but would like to.

The bolded is a principal reason in why many of us were hesitant to open up this subject here. It is a very touchy subject that tends to pit LA fans against St Louis fans and there is such a lack of specific information as to if a move is really in the works or going to happen. It became pretty tough to not allow at least a test run at the subject via this thread when the announcement was made about the Inglewood project.

I can understand why LA fans want the Rams back and I think it is obvious why the St Louis fans want to keep them. I'm not sure any of this back and forth is going to change anyone's mind. But I do find the different angles on what means what that we see in this thread.

All that said, I too wish someone would just deliver the news - tough as it will be for one of the fan bases. I'm split on it. I have been to LA and watched many games down there in all the major pro leagues. I grew up as a kid as an LA Rams fan. But I don't live there and it has been 20 years and I'm still here. I'd actually rather head off to St Louis to watch a game. It would probably cost me the same either way and I get to take my wife to a town she really had a blast in last time she was there.

There is NO precedent in that at all. No case was developed in court regarding the rewritten rules, no judgement rendered...thus no precedent. There is evidence that the league would rather not risk going to court, but that is NOT precedent...at least not legal precedent that would determine a court case (note that out of court decisions/agreements hold no precedental strength in court).

The original case involving the Raiders did go to court and the NFL lost. What precedent might have been set would depend on if and how the NFL might have changed their bylaws. I do suspect that they worked on the specific areas that lost them the case but I really don't have anything to back that up.

It's also a theory that he's building it for the Rams since he hasn't come right out and said it. We can point to "signs" all we want, but until Kroenke actually announces his intentions, everything is based on theories, aren't they?

Yep.

Nope, the bylaws aren't the same. Even thought I can't remember exactly what was said in the Amy Trask article, I believe she even stated how the bylaws are different than they were back when teams were moving all over the place in the 90s and how that would be difficult to do today with today's bylaws in place.

Here is the article: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html Just wish she would have been asked the specific changes. It's kind of irritating that no one will say.

 

[RamFan503]

I recently made a bad decision and looked at the Rams site on the PD. There was a "discussion" regarding Stan's property in Inglewood and pro Rams to LA and pro Rams in Stl. were arguing about the financial windfall that Stan would gain if such a move were to happen. One poster, (and I don't remember who it was) stated that it was possible that Stan was trying to get Inglewood to rezone so that a Walmart could finally be built there. The more that I thought about it, the more that possibility made sense to me. A huge "Super Walmart" in that region could rake in more in profits every day than an NFL team could make in a season. The construction costs would likely be less than a third of what a new football stadium would cost, maintenance costs would be considerably less and instead of 8 regular season games, a couple of preseason games and various special events scheduled throughout the year, they could rake in the profits 24/7/365. I believe that SK is not involved with the Walmart daily operations, but it could be a financial windfall if he could get that to happen. I would think that it would be hugely more profitable than owning an NFL franchise, but it would depend on SK's ego and the ownership of another professional sports team. Am I missing something here or does this seem reasonable to anyone else?

Bad decision indeed.

As far as changing the zoning, that is not actually happening. At least not by the initiative they have in hand. The initiative is a conditional use change that specifically allows for a stadium and concert venue to be added to the project already approved. Generally, conditional uses don't actually change the existing zoning but allow for a deviation.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So the by-laws were exactly the same when the Rams moved to STL as they are today?

Exactly the same? No. Significantly different? No. The other night I read over the NFL Constitution and Bylaws because I was curious, and like others here who have done the same, I don't see anything in there that changes how the NFL can handle teams relocating than how it was when the Rams left. The NFL had no teeth then, and no way to protect themselves during a lawsuit, and as far as I can tell, they still don't. If I missed something I would like to know though.

You may read it here:
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

A lot has changed.

If you would please direct me to these changes, because as I said above, I haven't been able to find them.

Yes, it is a fact Kroenke is trying to build d stadium. How much you can deduce from that is up to each person.

That is true, with reports that the stadium seems to have one last major hurdle, and that may actually be solved as early as next Tuesday, dismissing it as if it's still just a dream is downplaying it quite a bit. As it stands right now, it would appear that Kroenke is closer to building a stadium in Los Angeles than not. What he does with that stadium is up in the air, and he has yet to reveal those intentions.

No need to reply to my post here... no offense intended, but I know where you stand and no amount of typing on your part is gonna change my mind...

You actually don't know where I stand, I want the Rams to remain in St Louis and have always wanted that throughout this process.

It's also a theory that he's building it for the Rams since he hasn't come right out and said it. We can point to "signs" all we want, but until Kroenke actually announces his intentions, everything is based on theories, aren't they?

More or less, it's just that some theories will have more merit than others. Similar to theories that say that life is out in the universe somewhere, and theories that the earth is flat or that there is glass in the sky that protects us or some shit. All are theories, one has more merit. That's not me saying that the only theory with merit is that he's leaving, it's just saying that theories about him selling the team or building a stadium for someone else seem very unlikely.

Am I missing something here or does this seem reasonable to anyone else?

That doesn't seem very realistic to me, given the park project as a whole, the fact they've announced a stadium already, voters already said no to Walmart, all the initiatives are for a stadium etc. I'd say that's someone who is just throwing out some wishful ideas.



On a semi related note, reading through the Constitution Bylaws it mentions several times that the Los Angeles market belongs to the NFL and the NFL only, and that no team may claim that market until the NFL votes for a team to relocate there. They also mention looking to bring a "strong NFC presence back to LA as soon as possible" in response to the Rams leaving. In 2004 (the most recent time they addressed LA in the Bylaws) they restated that no team can claim LA as a market. Which of course, the Chargers are trying to do, which puts another twist into this entire thing.

 

[TSFH Fan]

Anything can happen, so this will be a very long wait and see game.

One of the fun things is that under Article 8.5 of the Constitution and Bylaws, Goodell has the right to interpret the bylaws and establish policy and procedure from time to time. http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

So, if Goodell is as consistent on relocation as he is on player discipline, there could be a somewhat different set of rules and relevant facts in a few months.

More random stuff: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf