I agree with you it will depend on what the other owners think but in my opinion one counter "my way or the highway" proposal not a negotiation make especially when the city has returned with a new stadium proposal in 18 mos. He is obligated to negotiate in go faith with the City regardless if the party is new individuals or not. I think this is where we are splitting hairs here because the arbitration process was with the CVC over the current lease in respect to the EJD not with the city to leave the current market.
I agree with that, one of my main points is that I believe the NFL will say he argued in good faith, because I believe they're likely to give him the go ahead. I've long believed that relying on owners to block a move is a foolish way to keep the team, efforts need to be to convince him.
I don't think they are opposite at all. First off people need to stop saying he is going to own the stadium because chances are he is not going to be the one who owns it on paper. 26 out of 32 owners do not own the stadium out right because of taxes and maintenance, I am sure there are other reasons as well, Jones doesn't own the AT&T stadium the city of Arlington does. The really detail here is the lease agreement which determines the split of the revenue. The Stadiums will both be state of the art and just because one has a retractable roof doesn't make it better. If Stan wants to pay to put a roof on this thing then he is more than welcome too. Other then the roof and the seat capacity there really isn't much of a difference that we know of outside of drawings. Those things can always be negotiated. I am not sure Kroenke can argue he doesn't wasn't the stadium because of A, B, or C if he doesn't negotiate. According to the bylaws he cannot move just to increase the value of his team. I understand that is also a clause that mentions the betterment of the league but tell me how abandoning on market while simultaneously hurting two other markets better the league?
I'm not sure how you can think the two stadiums aren't very different, because they are. As for ownership, that is what is being reported. Granted it is speculation, but its from people who do have sources, and are close to Kroenke, that is what is being said. So to dismiss it as if its just not going to happen, I doubt it. Maybe he won't own it all on paper for tax reasons, but he's sure as hell going to get revenue for other events that go on there, etc. Things he would not get in St Louis. That added with differences in seating, general appearance, parking, surrounding area, etc etc etc, it's all things that he can factor in to what he wants and doesn't want. If St Louis is only willing to go so far and build one type of stadium, then he doesn't have to say yes. If St Louis is willing to go further, that helps, but it seems a lot of the grumble is "take it or leave it"..
As for abandoning markets, the NFL has done that before. It's unlikely they would stay away from St Louis forever, unless they don't build the stadium, but Oakland and San Diego aren't being worse off because if LA. Neither team can afford to set things up in LA, and it allows them both to move to better markets if Kroenke is going to share a new stadium. That would be better for the league. Additionally, a few reports have said the NFL cares more about solving the LA problem than the St Louis problem. While harsh, if the reports are true, then that's just the reality of it.
Most of the owners are old school and don't like the constant switching of markets which is why the bylaws, and the suggestion of congress, were put into place to help avoid an Al Davis like situation. The don't want lawsuits which is why if a team goes rogue they are subject to pretty big penalties that every own agreed to so I don't a lawsuit is going to circumvent the penalties. While I do think that you correct that Stan represents the most realistic chance to get back into the LA I don't agree that the NFL is in a rush to get back there. You're right the Spanos may not want to sell 40% of his team but at the same time his tune may have changed with current developements. If was also reported that AEG asking price may have come down. I wouldn't say the deck is stacked agains STL but the scale is tipping towards LA. However, with every box that STL checks off they are adding counter weight.
A lot of the owners didn't want the Rams to leave LA in the first place. Its actually written in their constitution to get an NFC team to LA as soon as they can. When I read over the bylaws and constitution I, like others here who read them, saw nothing that protected the NFL from any lawsuits, or gave them any more real power to keep an owner from going rouge. They don't want lawsuits which is why I think they just give him the go ahead. If Kroenke starts building that stadium, and the land around it has and is being prepped (sewage, water, sidewalks, etc) with construction expected to begin this year, I don't see how the NFL can tell him he can't play there. I just don't see it. I don't see any additional protection. The NFL has said for years getting a team in LA was a huge priority, and many have said that within a few years they expect it done. That won't happen if they block a move. Plus the AEG model still has financing issues, and if Davis or Spanos can't pay a significant portion (which would be similar to what their current markets need for a new stadium) then it can't get done. Plus apparently the NFL didn't like the idea all that much.
