New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

This is what I can find on the Al Davis situation when the Raiders moved and subsequent changes to the bylaws, FWIW.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT IS A RAIDER RULE


THE HOLY ROLLER

In September 1978, the Oakland Raiders traveled to San Diego’s Jack Murphy Stadium and the San Diego Chargers. The Raiders were on a drive with time running out. Ken Stabler dropped back to pass, with a throwing motion fumbled the ball forward, then pushed the ball to tight end Dave Casper. Casper in turn kicked the ball towards the end zone before recovering the ball. The officials looked at each other then signaled Raider touchdown and another Silver and Black victory.

During the winter league meetings in 1979 the administrators created a new rule. No offensive player can move the football forward after it is fumbled by another offensive player.


THIS IS A RAIDER RULE…..


OAKLAND AND THE NFL VS. LOS ANGELES AND AL DAVIS

This was a battle for eminent domain and the owner Al Davis seemed to have the upper hand.
In the 1982-83 season The Oakland Raiders packed their bags and headed south to the Hollywood City of Los Angeles. The NFL, Al Davis, the City of Oakland, and the Raiders were in a nasty legal battle. The league did not want the Raiders moving anywhere and Mr. Davis saw an opportunity to make money and challenge the National Football League anti-trust law.

The NFL and City of Oakland could not stop Al Davis as they lost the antitrust and bad faith violations suit. “A United States Federal District Court Jury ruling that the NFL bylaw, stating that a franchise could not move unless 21 of the 28 owners gave their approval, was a violation of Federal Antitrust Law.
This Federal court ruling voided the NFL bylaw and allowed the Oakland Raiders to become the Los Angeles Raiders”, This opened the door for other teams to move to the city of their choice by their respective owners.
A year later the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis in the middle of the night with owner Bob Irsay. They became the Indianapolis Colts. Three years later the Saint Louis Cardinals moved to Tempe Arizona and became the Phoenix Cardinals. This team would finally become the Arizona Cardinals.

The last franchise to move was in the early 90′s. The Houston Oilers wanted out of the 35 year old Astro Dome and moved to Tennessee to become the Titans.

The NFL panicked and feared other teams would follow the Oakland Raiders. The league changed the bylaws that prohibited teams from moving without consent of the majority to minority. No team has challenged this new rule.


http://blackathlete.net/2012/07/the-nfl-raider-rules/

See, this still seems like it's not enough to really do anything. No team has filed a law suit yet, but it doesn't stop one.

In fact when Georgia originally wanted to move the Rams to St Louis, they voted against it. She threatened to sue on grounds it was a violation of Antitrust Laws (same thing Davis sued and won on) and the NFL backed off really quickly, and said she could move. They then stated that their goal was to get an NFC team in LA as soon as they could.

So this tells me that if Kroenke were to threaten to sue if the owners said no, they would likely back off as well, or if it did go to court I don't see much that really changes the outcome in their favor.

 

[ChrisW]

See, this still seems like it's not enough to really do anything. No team has filed a law suit yet, but it doesn't stop one.

In fact when Georgia originally wanted to move the Rams to St Louis, they voted against it. She threatened to sue on grounds it was a violation of Antitrust Laws (same thing Davis sued and won on) and the NFL backed off really quickly, and said she could move. They then stated that their goal was to get an NFC team in LA as soon as they could.

So this tells me that if Kroenke were to threaten to sue if the owners said no, they would likely back off as well, or if it did go to court I don't see much that really changes the outcome in their favor.

I wasn't old enough to remember that. I would have been like 7 at the time. So I can't comment on all the circumstances surrounding the move. I'm willing to bet there were some other factors that went into the NFL backing off as well.

 

[dhaab]

If the Rams leave, they're not turning their backs on the city, there's a lot of people saying they could direct another team to St Louis.

This is a joke, right? If you honestly believe that the people of St. Louis will happily wait AGAIN for another NFL franchise after having two different teams bolt their city, you are living in a fantasy land.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I wasn't old enough to remember that. I would have been like 7 at the time. So I can't comment on all the circumstances surrounding the move. I'm willing to bet there were some other factors that went into the NFL backing off as well.

I didn't live in the states, so I don't know much. What I found was this on wikipedia, however it's not directly sourced..

The NFL, which had decided that the city was unsuitable as a football market, initially voted to block the Rams' move to St. Louis. However, when Frontiere threatened to sue the league under antitrust laws, the league relented and approved the move with Frontiere casting the deciding vote in a 23-6 decision (The Giants, Jets, Steelers, Cardinals, Bills and Redskins remained no votes, while the Raiders abstained).

I did find this article written after they voted to approve that said it was to avoid the lawsuit.

The Rams agreed to pay $30 million to the league to get the owners to reverse a 21-3 vote last month in Phoenix. The 23 votes yesterday was the minimum needed. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said the reversal, which will leave the 49ers as the only NFC West team west of St. Louis, was more an attempt to avoid a lawsuit than about the money.

"The decision to have peace and not to have war was a big factor," Tagliabue said.

Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington, Phoenix and both New York teams voted against the move. Los Angeles Raiders owner Al Davis abstained, as he did in Phoenix.

"I'm not for it," Steelers owner Dan Rooney said. "You've got to support the fans. The fans in Los Angeles supported the Rams for years."

The votes were originally 21 against, 3 for and 6 abstaining, the wording here makes it sound like it was 21 for, and just a few short.

There was also this:

Sports agent Leigh Steinberg of Save the Rams felt betrayed.

"Clearly, the league has decided here that the violation of their guidelines governing franchise relocation isn't important," Steinberg said. "The NFL's got some mighty tall explaining to do as to how violations of their own relocation policy by the Rams suddenly became acceptable.

Sounds awfully familiar.... Exactly why I don't trust the NFL to give two shits about their bylaws.

This is a joke, right? If you honestly believe that the people of St. Louis will happily wait AGAIN for another NFL franchise after having two different teams bolt their city, you are living in a fantasy land.

Then you wont have a team? I don't know what you want me to say here.

 

[dhaab]

Then you wont have a team? I don't know what you want me to say here.

Um, stop pretending that the NFL isn't turning their backs on the city of St. Louis. If they move to LA, that's exactly what they would be doing for the 2nd time in 27 years.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Um, stop pretending that the NFL isn't turning their backs on the city of St. Louis. If they move to LA, that's exactly what they would be doing for the 2nd time in 27 years.

If they work to bring another team there, then they're still looking to stay in the city, meaning they aren't turning their backs to St Louis. If they don't work to bring another team there, then yeah the argument would make sense.

 

[ChrisW]

I didn't live in the states, so I don't know much. What I found was this on wikipedia, however it's not directly sourced..



I did find this article written after they voted to approve that said it was to avoid the lawsuit.


The votes were originally 21 against, 3 for and 6 abstaining, the wording here makes it sound like it was 21 for, and just a few short.

There was also this:


Sounds awfully familiar.... Exactly why I don't trust the NFL to give two shits about their bylaws.





Then you wont have a team? I don't know what you want me to say here.

I wonder if Goodell has more of a spine than Tagliabue did. We may find out.

 

[RamFan503]

The league changed the bylaws that prohibited teams from moving without consent of the majority to minority.

Huh?

 

[RamFan503]

I wonder if Goodell has more of a spine than Tagliabue did. We may find out.

Indeed. We may also find out if the league owners themselves have a spine. It's they who will have to pay if they lose a lawsuit - not Goodell. He may lose his job.... Hey! Silver lining! I knew there was one out there somewhere.

 

[drasconis]

Its actually written in their constitution to get an NFC team to LA as soon as they can.

1995 Resolution G-4 phrasing regarding the issues completely non-binding and holds no weight, it is opinion only, and isn't actually part of the rules of the constitution.... (heck note how this was ignored during last expansion).

 

[drasconis]

In fact when Georgia originally wanted to move the Rams to St Louis, they voted against it. She threatened to sue on grounds it was a violation of Antitrust Laws (same thing Davis sued and won on) and the NFL backed off really quickly, and said she could move.

After payinga hefty relocation fee, it is debatable if they did not want to test the courts or if they simply felt the payoff made them change their minds...though Kronke may do the same here....

[/Quote]So this tells me that if Kroenke were to threaten to sue if the owners said no, they would likely back off as well, or if it did go to court I don't see much that really changes the outcome in their favor.[/QUOTE]

Going to court is a BIG gamble for Kronke, maybe it is worth it, but no lawyer is going to say it is a certain outcome (not that a good lawyer will EVER say an outcome is certain). I do not think the threat of suing byself would prevent them from going to court...now if the "relocation fee" was large enough then maybe they feel differently.....

 

[ChrisW]

Huh?

Sounds like some legalese intended to confuse. lol.

 

[RamFan503]

No doubt in my mind that offer was intended to be rejected. It's like offering a guy with a 200,000 house 18,000 and then claiming he won’t work with you. Or a guy on unemployment who turns in awful applications designed to fulfill his quota but be unhirable at the same time.

I just don't see how offering a non-starter proposal like the one the CVC did is operating in good faith. The arbitrators ruled with Stan that his proposal would keep the dome in the top 25%.

I think we can all agree that the top 25% clause was a potential poison pill. But it is what the CVC offered up and signed onto in order to get the Rams to come to St Louis. The CVC as the link provided by @dbrooks25 above shows is a combination of appointees from the city, county, and Governor's office. That would indicate to me at least that all three had input on the CVC proposal. If not then an entity responsible for negotiating with the Rams appears to have just offered up something they knew would fail and then had to pay Stan several millions as a result. Is that really what is being offered as good faith?

Stan's proposal might have been a proposal that was too expensive. But it is arguable if anything short would have brought the dome up to top tier status. Now everyone wants to act like the top tier issue shouldn't exist because the CVC backed out of the deal? I just don't follow the logic. I would think the Governor would need to propose something that is top tier. Maybe the proposal is or will become that. But I just don't see the NFL forcing Stan's hand if St Louis wants to build the Rams a stadium that Stan will not own, is not in top tier status, and that he will not get any other revenues besides ticket sales.

Does anyone know what kind of rent the Governor is proposing? Is it in line with the Dome lease? Or has that been taken off the table too?

 

[RamFan503]

Sounds like some legalese intended to confuse. lol.

Well it worked on me.

 

[RamFan503]

After payinga hefty relocation fee, it is debatable if they did not want to test the courts or if they simply felt the payoff made them change their minds...though Kronke may do the same here....

Did they? I thought it was something like $30 million. A lot to us - certainly. But to an NFL owner and compared to what they are talking about now?

 

[drasconis]

Did they? I thought it was something like $30 million. A lot to us - certainly. But to an NFL owner and compared to what they are talking about now?

At the time the expansion fee for Carolina and Jacksonville were $140 mil and the Rams were valued at $200 million after they moved to STL (note the friendly lease moved them way up the chart post move....but have moved way down in it in years since - but move to LA woudl bump them right back up). So in current percentages (one would assume such fees would escalate equal to other items) a relocation fee would likely be $200-300 million. (I have heard crazy #'s like $1bil to match likely expansion fees - but based on history that seems unlikey - though history is limited). This is just an estimate and it depends on the risk and cost of going to court.

I could be wrong but I believe part of selling part of team to Kroenke intially was to help cover the cost of the fees.

Inflation - especially in the NFL is painful.

 

[RamFan503]

At the time the expansion fee for Carolina and Jacksonville were $140 mil and the Rams were valued at $200 million after they moved to STL (note the friendly lease moved them way up the chart post move....but have moved way down in it in years since - but move to LA woudl bump them right back up). So in current percentages (one would assume such fees would escalate equal to other items) a relocation fee would likely be $200-300 million. (I have heard crazy #'s like $1bil to match likely expansion fees - but based on history that seems unlikey - though history is limited). This is just an estimate and it depends on the risk and cost of going to court.

I could be wrong but I believe part of selling part of team to Kroenke intially was to help cover the cost of the fees.

Inflation - especially in the NFL is painful.

Yeah - you could be right. It seems all involved have avoided answering that question too. So much misdirection going on here it is flat out maddening.

 

[Big Unit]

The NFL has had a rough year; I find it hard to believe that they would permit a shift of three teams (two to LA, a third to St. Louis), all at the same time. Seems to me more likely that Stan Kroenke - if he found a willing trade partner - would be permitted to trade the Rams for the Raiders, and move the Raiders and Chargers to LA. He might have to pay a "sweetener" to the Raiders' owners to make the deal; but then he'd probably keep the merchandise rights, etc. Seems to me I read that the Raiders - even after many years of mediocrity at best - sell the third most merchandise; Cowboys are #1, and Jerry Jones already keeps all their merchandise money.

I think the owners want teams in LA, but are afraid of at the same time "dissing" a mid-market team like St. Louis; especially when the former CEO of Anheuser-Busch is leading St. Louis's stadium effort.

 

[blue4]

I just don't see how offering a non-starter proposal like the one the CVC did is operating in good faith. The arbitrators ruled with Stan that his proposal would keep the dome in the top 25%.

I think we can all agree that the top 25% clause was a potential poison pill. But it is what the CVC offered up and signed onto in order to get the Rams to come to St Louis. The CVC as the link provided by @dbrooks25 above shows is a combination of appointees from the city, county, and Governor's office. That would indicate to me at least that all three had input on the CVC proposal. If not then an entity responsible for negotiating with the Rams appears to have just offered up something they knew would fail and then had to pay Stan several millions as a result. Is that really what is being offered as good faith?

Stan's proposal might have been a proposal that was too expensive. But it is arguable if anything short would have brought the dome up to top tier status. Now everyone wants to act like the top tier issue shouldn't exist because the CVC backed out of the deal? I just don't follow the logic. I would think the Governor would need to propose something that is top tier. Maybe the proposal is or will become that. But I just don't see the NFL forcing Stan's hand if St Louis wants to build the Rams a stadium that Stan will not own, is not in top tier status, and that he will not get any other revenues besides ticket sales.

Does anyone know what kind of rent the Governor is proposing? Is it in line with the Dome lease? Or has that been taken off the table too?

The whole top tier thing if I'm not mistaken was just a term of the lease. Which expired. Insisting on a renewal of that term for a 20 year old stadium is kind of a logical non starter anyway. My car was top of the line in 2005. No way you can spend enough to keep it there. It's not even really a good negotiating tactic as it's completely unworkable from the start. And you have to actually talk to someone to renegotiate. I'm not saying St Louis couldn't have started before 18 months ago, but still Stan's in no hardship compared to other sites and he doesn't even talk.

As for the new stadium not being top tier, why would a brand new stadium not be top tier? There's a difference between building a quality stadium and building a palatial wonderland. If he wants that, I would think we'd need to hear some figures from him. Just saying that it has to host a SB is an oversimplification, as weather, hotels, parking, city infrastructure all play a part.

 

[bluecoconuts]

1995 Resolution G-4 phrasing regarding the issues completely non-binding and holds no weight, it is opinion only, and isn't actually part of the rules of the constitution.... (heck note how this was ignored during last expansion).

I didn't say it was binding or anything, but it'd worth noting, because as far as I know they haven't said that about other markets. Its a good note if people wonder if the NFK really wants to go to LA, I'd say they do. They've needed the right person to get it done, it seems that Stan is that person.

After payinga hefty relocation fee, it is debatable if they did not want to test the courts or if they simply felt the payoff made them change their minds...though Kronke may do the same here....

I posted an article where the comissioner at the time said it was about avoiding a lawsuit, not the money.

Going to court is a BIG gamble for Kronke, maybe it is worth it, but no lawyer is going to say it is a certain outcome (not that a good lawyer will EVER say an outcome is certain). I do not think the threat of suing byself would prevent them from going to court...now if the "relocation fee" was large enough then maybe they feel differently.....

I'm sure Kroenke will pay a relocation fee, as for the amount I'm not sure. 1 billion seems to high, but its not impossible. However if Kroenke spends nearly 2 billion on a stadium, and is denied a move, I would say a lawsuit is very much worth the risk. You don't spend that money and get told no. I don't think he spends a dime in St Louis unless he wants to, he can't be forced to pay.