What do you suppose Kroenke and Demoff pitching Inglewood at last week's NFL meeting says?
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
What do you suppose Kroenke and Demoff pitching Inglewood at last week's NFL meeting says?
Hey don't assume I'm in the same line of thinking that he doesn't want to move - I just answered his question with showing how different people can/will connect different dots.
I think its fully obvious he wants to move - but for me I don't think the NFL will let him for multiple reasons.
Unions have lost the battle to control private investment but do still control public building and government jobs.
Asserting that a non-union company has to have employees on government aid is silly. When I was in the business, my workers earned far more than union workers. But, we were specialised. Our clients willingly paid us for our knowledge and skillsets, not because someone dictated our worth to them and threatened them with protests and boycotts.
Sometimes we were forced to work at night to avoid the unions. Sometimes we were forced to hire union workers and we had to instruct them step by step onsite because they were not trained in particular technologies. Those were the saddest knowing the customers of those businesses were being forced to foot the bill to pay for unnecessary and under qualified workers. Other times they were grudgingly forced to hire us because they weren't certified to do the work.
I can't ever imagine allowing an organization that FORCES workers to join and pay dues just to get a job. It's just not American. I'm not against unions in concept, uniting for fairness and safety, I'm against their reality, buying politicians and deciding who gets a job and who doesn't.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Last edited:
This is definitely the part that remains to be seen.
I do have a hard time seeing the point of anyone who thinks Kroenke's intentions aren't clear. Though there doesn't really seem to be many of them left...
Yes, he has. Every statement he's ever made. He even tried to stay in the dome with upgrades. Demoff has stated they support the building of a stadium in STL. So, based on what we actually know as fact, with nothing being said otherwise, it's a reasonable statement that he is probably just playing the cards he has.
All statements that the Rams want to move are conjecture and not supported by anything but some drawings that don't have "Rams" on them anywhere. You don't agree?
“But we have a good core fan base in St. Louis. We're playing football in St. Louis. We're not just going to turn our back and say we're going to dismiss the efforts that the task force has made."
“That wouldn't be fair to what they've done. It’s not fair to Dave and Bob, and it’s not fair to the fans. Nor is it fair to the rest of the NFL. Our job is to be engaged with the task force, to give that proposal the best chance of it being built for us.”
- Kevin Demoff
Last edited:
To me it says, if STL doesn't build a stadium, I'm taking my toys and leaving.
What it doesn't say anywhere in any of the plans or statements is they want the Rams to move there.
It's a chess game and he's keeping the pressure on.
He's actually quite amazing. He's got half the world convinced he is moving the Rams without ever once indicating that. The city is going to hand him $400,000,000 without him even asking for it. Neither city can say he lied or made false promises. Genius, really.
...and that is exactly what he wants you to assume.
“But we have a good core fan base in St. Louis. We're playing football in St. Louis. We're not just going to turn our back and say we're going to dismiss the efforts that the task force has made."
“That wouldn't be fair to what they've done. It’s not fair to Dave and Bob, and it’s not fair to the fans. Nor is it fair to the rest of the NFL. Our job is to be engaged with the task force, to give that proposal the best chance of it being built for us.”
- Kevin Demoff
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...s-Rams-Future-St-Louis-Stadium-Situation.aspx
Is it a possibility that the Rams are playing football in St. Louis in 2016?
"I think that's absolutely a possibility. Nothing is impossible at that point. Nothing is a given. I think our goal...is to focus on the year at hand on the field, on the product, on the marketing side and then really look at the stadium issues separately. To say right now in 2016 do we know where we're playing? I don't think anybody has any idea but it's certainly possible that it could be in St. Louis. I don't think that's off the table or unlikely. It could be just as likely as it is unlikely."
Is it a possibility that the Rams are playing football in St. Louis in 2016?
"I think that's absolutely a possibility. Nothing is impossible at that point. Nothing is a given. I think our goal...is to focus on the year at hand on the field, on the product, on the marketing side and then really look at the stadium issues separately. To say right now in 2016 do we know where we're playing? I don't think anybody has any idea but it's certainly possible that it could be in St. Louis. I don't think that's off the table or unlikely. It could be just as likely as it is unlikely."
The funny thing is I'm not concedeing that either one is right (@RamzFanz or @den-the-coach) - could easily one could be either one at the end of the day. Awhile ago I mentioned to @RamFan503 that there was this thought in the back of my head that kept pestering me - it was back when speculation was running rampant about what owners were really talking about at meetings and behind closed doors.
Disclaimer: Purely Speculation and I think this has a small chance of happening (like 5%), but I wouldn't put past them either
The thought was that if its so conceivable that these owners that have these secret partnerships and meetings, it wouldn't be shocking at all to see a mutual agreement between Kroenke and Spanos in both making plays for LA, to leverage the best deals out of their current cities. California has been notorious for wanting to avoid using public money to build a stadium, and over the years we've seen an owner threaten to use LA as leverage just to get a better deal. The Chargers have been in a position and have been speculated for years as a possibility to move to LA (seriously - i'm looking at articles right now from 2011,2012, etc.). We all know he's been trying to get a deal in SD for over 14 years... So how would one enhance the perception of a LA threat even more credible? By adding another owner to the mix, making it a race or fight for LA. Making people focus on "who gets LA?" instead of "Are they really going to move or just use it for leverage?" - Maximizes deals out of the cities involved while getting public money out of San Diego (although I don't think their deal is there yet...which I think is why the NFL has sped up their timeline, regardless if this unlikely theory is true or not)
Double Disclaimer Double check: Speculation, and I think the odds of this are low..but it's interesting none the less
Last edited:
Good article.
Also:
"We've never said it is our preference to move to Los Angeles. I think our goal is to create the best possible options and go from there. I have seen three teams now acquire land and plan to build stadiums. I don't know that anybody's expressed their preference overall." - Kevin Demoff
Yes it's best to leave it there. It's absolutely American and no different than any other organization. Like I said, if you don't want people to weigh in on your political statements, don't make them. Saying the unions have the clout to force a stadium to get built is silly.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Perhaps, but I just don't see why he'd be in a rush out of his current lease in the dome. It's probably the most owner friendly lease in the NFL, why would he want to get out of that? Even if he is forced to stay in St Louis, why be in a rush? Why put himself into a longterm lease that isn't nearly as friendly, where he doesn't get to own and operate the stadium, which he typically likes to do, and doesn't get to collect the profits from different events, which he likes to do? If he's forced to stay I'm going to bank on him sitting in the dome until it's nearly up while he either looks to sell the team or build something that he wants and will own/operate.
It's actually limited to what they can do with it, he does have a backup plan and can put in some more retail buildings instead of the stadium, but he doesn't have endless possibilities.
They don't need to actually build, but without commitment from Kroenke, which I very much doubt they're going to get anytime soon, they can't build the stadium, and therefore he can argue that St Louis doesn't work for him. The reason why he can say he's going to drop over 2 billion in LA and doesn't want to drop a little over half a billion in St Louis is because he can say the city doesn't work for him, citing slow movement times, the market studies (the fact we haven't heard squat other than not to expect great things, makes me think they're bad) and other reasons. Now as fans we know that St Louis is a great NFL city, and a great sports city. I think the NFL knows this as well. However the NFL typically likes to protect their owners, and Kroenke really is in a bad position going back to St Louis to try to work out a deal. The fact that it was very difficult to get things going until LA was there, and the fact that the general majority among the fanbase thinks that they would be better off if Kroenke wasn't the owner, gives him the ability to argue that staying there would be bad for him and therefore bad for the NFL. Plus by giving them the strongest LA proposal, that gives them enough of a reason to let him move. Is it fair? Not really, but it's the NFL, when have they ever really been fair?
1.7 is what he spent to fast track the proposal, that doesn't include the land he bought, or hiring of the architecture firm, or any of the other things he's done. 1.7 was just to fast track, nothing else. However since all of this started, how much as he invested in St Louis? Not very much.
He was discussing the Chargers there though, he didn't say the Rams or the Raiders haven't negotiated in good faith. Goodell said that the situations weren't anything new for any of the cities though. While it's been reported that they had to do some arm twisting to get Demoff in the meetings, he has been going to them, and he has been working with the city, and they haven't been shitting over everything the city does (like the Chargers, who by the way are having multiple suits being filed about their lack of good faith and to remove Fabiani)
I don't think the courts could rule that Kroenke couldn't move before they have ruled, I think that's a can of worms they wouldn't want to open.
I also don't think that Kroenke would do that if Carson gets the green light, but simply by the fact that Carson can't physically be done before Inglewood if they were to try to do that dance, it means he could in theory. The NFL could say "Well we wont give you superbowls and we don't give you TV money and we wont give you merchandising money" but to be perfectly honest, Stan would probably make more money in LA without them. I don't think Stan is going to go against the league, but he could fight them in court, and if he won, just as Davis did, there's no much they can do.
I know that there wont be three teams in LA, but St Louis can't build unless Kroenke buys in, and if he doesn't buy in, and the NFL lets him move then that's that. It seems there's going to be two teams in LA and another new stadium in one of the remaining three cities regardless.
I think that Davis, Modell, Georgia and a few other owners would argue that they can go against the NFL and move even when the league doesn't want them to. There's plenty of ways to get what they want. Demoff is playing politics know, he's a smart guy, he knows what to say and do.
Well, I just found this so I wanted to ask you some questions:
"Gov. Jay Nixon and Mayor Francis Slay spoke at a news conference Thursday at the offices of the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council union. More than 100 workers crowded the hall as a show of solidarity for the plan to build a 64,000-seat, outdoor stadium and complete construction in two years."
Who is in charge? Why would they go to the unions for a building contract instead of just putting it out for bids? Why would they even need to ask the unions? How are non-union workers included in this two party "agreement"?
"The governor said the work would be "transformational" and provide a "jolt of energy" to downtown whether the Rams stay -- or not."
So now the powers are building it just to build it? With no real plan of even having a team?! Why would they do that?
The Ripper
Starter
The threat of fines came too late in the process to have any effect and the month before the NFL threatened to sue.. The Seahawks did not have anything place. John Shaw did the negotiations and he was quoted prior to the owners meeting that he didn't think the relocation was serious. The sale of the team was in the end stages of negotiations by the time NFL threatened. Also, Behrens offered more to King County to buy out the lease. King County already had an injunction that prohibited the team from playing anywhere else. Many reporters like to claim that the NFL prevented the move but the reality is that there were many things that lead to the team going back and the NFL was threat was the least of them.
The Ripper
Starter
Here are the rules from 1994. They're pretty similar to the ones in place today
PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSED FRANCHISE RELOCATIONS
Article 8.5 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws vests in the Commissioner the authority to
"interpret and from time to time establish policy and procedure in respect to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws and any enforcement thereof." Set forth below are procedures and policy to apply to League consideration, pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Constitution and Bylaws, of any proposed transfer of a home territory. These provisions were established in December of 1984 and remain in effect.
Section 4.3 requires prior approval by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the member
clubs of the League (the normal voting margin for League business) before a club may transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city either within or outside its home territory. While the following provisions apply by their terms to a proposed transfer to a different home territory, a transfer of a club's playing site to a different location within its home territory may also raise issues of League-wide significance. Accordingly, the pre-Annual Meeting notification date prescribed in section (A)(1) tjelow also applies to a proposed intra-territory relocation, and the Commissioner may require that some or all of the following procedures be followed with respect to such a move.
A. Notice and Evaluation of the Proposed Transfer
Before any club may transfer its franchise or playing site outside its current home territory, the club must submit a proposal for such transfer to the League on the following basis:
1 . A club proposing a transfer outside its home territory must give written notice of the proposed transfer to the Commissioner no later than 30 days prior to the opening date of the Annual Meeting in the year in which the club proposes to commence play in a new location. Such notice will be accompanied by a "statement of reasons' in support of the proposed transfer that will include the information outlined in Part B below.
2. The Commissioner will, with the assistance of appropriate League committees, evaluate the proposed transfer and report to the membership; if possible, he will do so within 20 days of his receipt of the club's notice and accompanying "statement of reasons." The Commissioner may also convene a special committee to perform fact finding or other functions with respect to any such proposed transfer.
3. Following the Commissioner's report on the proposed transfer, the transfer will be presented to the membership for action in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws, either at a Special Meeting of the League held for that purpose or at the Annual Meeting.
B. "Statement of Reasons" for the Proposed Transfer
Any club proposing a transfer outside its home territory must, in its accompanying "statement of reasons," furnish information to the Commissioner essential to consideration of whether such a move is justified and whether it is in the League's interest.
In this connection, the club proposing to transfer must present in writing its views to why its recent financial experience would support a relocation of the club. Such information would include a comparison of the club's home revenues with League averages and medians; past and projected ticket sales and other stadium revenues at both the existing and proposed locations; and operating profits or losses during the most recent four seasons. The club should also comment on any other factors it regards as relevant to the League's consideration of the proposed transfer, including but not limited to operations of other professional or college sports in the existing and proposed home territories, and the effects of the proposed transfer on NFL scheduling patterns, travel requirements, current divisional alignments, traditional rivalries. League-wide television patterns and interests, the quality of stadium facilities, and fan and public perceptions of the NFL and its member clubs.
To permit such a review, at least the following information will accompany the "statement of reasons" for the proposed transfer:
1 . A copy of the club's existing stadium lease and any other agreements relating to the club's use of its current stadium (e.g., concession agreements, box suite agreements, scoreboard advertising agreements) or to a stadium authority's or municipality's provision of related facilities (e.g., practice facilities).
2. Audited financial statements for the club for the fiscal years covering the preceding four seasons.
3. An assessment of the suitability of the club's existing stadium, costs of and prospects for making any desired improvements to the stadium, and the status of efforts to negotiate such improvements with the stadium authority.
4. A description and financial analysis of the projected lease and operating terms available to the club in its proposed new location.
5. A description and financial analysis of the stadium lease and operating terms available to the club in its existing home territory, on a basis that permits comparison with the projected arrangements in the proposed new location.
6. A budget projection, using accepted League charts of account, showing a projected profit and loss statement for the fiscal years covering the first three seasons in the proposed new location.
C. Factors to be Considered in Evaluating the Proposed Transfer
While the League has analyzed many factors in making expansion and team-move decisions in the past, the Commissioner will also give consideration to the factors listed below, among others, in reporting to the membership on any proposed transfer outside a home territory. Such factors were contained in a bill reported by a Senate committee in 1 984; they essentially restate matters that the League has considered vital in connection with team location decisions in the past. Accordingly, any club proposing to transfer should, in its submission to the Commissioner's office, present the club's position as to the bearing of these factors on its proposed transfer, stating specifically why such a move is regarded as justified on these standards:
1 . The adequacy of the stadium in which the team played its home games in the previous season, and the willingness of the stadium or arena authority to remedy any deficiencies in such facility;
2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the team has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the existing community;
3. The extent to which the team, directly or indirectly, received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment and any other form of public financial support;
4. The degree to which the ownership or management of the team has contributed
to any circumstance which might otherwise demonstrate the need for such re-
location;
5. Whether the team has incurred net operating losses, exclusive of depreciation
and amortization, sufficient to threaten the continued financial viability of the
team;
6. The degree to which the team has engaged in good faith negotiations with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the team
would continue to play its games in such community or elsewhere within its cur-
rent home territory;
7. Whether any other team in the League is located in the community in which the
team is currently located;
8. Whether the team proposes to relocate to a community in which no other team
in the League is located; and
9. Whether the stadium authority, if public, is not opposed to such relocation.
Any club proposing to transfer will have a full opportunity to state its position to the membership and to make its case for the proposed transfer. In order to fully assess a proposed transfer in light of the variety of League interests involved, and to fairly resolve the interests of all parties, it is essential that the membership be fully apprised of the relevant facts with respect to any proposed transfer. The procedures and policies outlined above are directed to that end.
Those are all assumptions. If he's contributing to the stadium, he can make any demands he wants about revenue and ownership sharing. He could even demand full control. I've seen nothing that states he won't.
I just found that the Rams have asked for changes to the new stadium which they received:
"Those changes came from the Rams, task force members said. Rams C.O.O., Kevin Demoff, had become more and more involved in the St. Louis stadium process, they said."
Looks to me like the cold shoulder thawed a while back before May. Why would they be involved with the design if they have no intentions of staying?
@RamzFanz you really are leading a charge. I hope your right and have been right up with you that no way the Rams were leaving.
But I think at this point its a toss up. Everyone including Kevin Demoff is talking about LA. That makes its a very real possibility. Plus, a lot of potential setbacks are seeming to pop up more recently. Lawsuits and the like.
My confidinee in the Rams staying is fading each day but remain hopeful that the STL stadium becomes real.
But I think at this point its a toss up. Everyone including Kevin Demoff is talking about LA. That makes its a very real possibility. Plus, a lot of potential setbacks are seeming to pop up more recently. Lawsuits and the like.
My confidinee in the Rams staying is fading each day but remain hopeful that the STL stadium becomes real.
None of the which can be losses in the end for him - buying the land? Develop it as something else. Again, what he's spending now pales in comparison to what he's getting. Think about where he was before at arbitration. The CVC's total plan was $124 million in renovation, with half of it coming from them. That's only $62 million in public money... he spends $2 million on concepts, buys some land (which as a real estate developer is just another day), and now the city is ponying up $400 million. It's not hard to see how this game works.
Yet Peacock hasn't met with Kroenke in a year and a half... Pretty telling.. Only furthers enhances the belief that Kroenke isn't truly working in good faith with St.Louis
Also while you point out they haven't said "they haven't negotiated in good faith", St.Louis is the only city who continually receives public and emphatic praising of its progress, and where they stand. While also continually being pointed out to be ahead of the other cities. I think that's very telling - if they didn't think the project wasn't viable, they wouldn't praise it. You're not hearing that about the Raiders or San Diego.
An injunction would only be in place until the courts have made their decision, and this is a pretty common practice.
I don't think you understand how much money that is, or how insanely stupid it would be to do that.. Those two combined are most likely 70% or higher of the NFL's total revenue (TV is 60%)
If it were this past year, he would have lost I think $300 million.
I think that's a bad assumption. It'd be naive to assume the NFL's lawyers haven't altered contracts and agreements to try to prevent such a battle, or at worst, try to give them more legs to stand on. (I mean hell look at their black out policy - FCC removed the rule but it didn't matter because the NFL still had it written into their TV contracts, hence the senators threatening anti-trust status before doing away with black out rule). But while he's battling in court, which could take years, Carson would be getting built (or even completed depending on how long)...But most importantly, Carson would be getting the backing..The superbowls, etc. While Kroenke wouldn't get anything.. Which if his sticking point on building a stadium was so he could attract Superbowls, it would seem counter productive wouldn't it?
Last edited:
Georgia was stopped from moving the Rams to Baltimore. Only 6 owners opposed her move to STL. She sought permission before moving and received it, so I'm not sure where that is coming from.
Modell likewise worked out a deal and didn't just move without permission, so, again.
Davis was just a pain in the ass for everyone. He did sue and win the right to move the Raiders to LA. That was 35 years ago and probably would fail today with the precedents that have been set since. He lost all of his other suits against the NFL and stadiums that I could find.
The vast majority of attempts to move without permission have failed.
I can't believe we're all really having this debate again, but the thread's been sort of stale lately so I guess I can't complain. Just thought I'd leave this article here, that I found on another Ram site. The irony is...well.....take a look.
St. Louis Blues: Fans Threaten Suit As NFL Blocks Rams's Exit From L.A.
Stadium is there. T-shirts are printed. Now all the city needs is a team.
By Laurel Shaper Walters, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor MARCH 20, 1995
ST. LOUIS — IN the multimillion-dollar game of National Football League ownership, failing to share a pot of gold does not go uncontested.
Football-hungry fans in St. Louis handed over $74 million to show their devotion to the sport and lock in a deal relocating the Rams here from Los Angeles.
But last week the NFL owners voted against the move, which would have given the Rams the most profitable franchise in the league. The vote was 21 to 3, with six owners abstaining. Now the issue appears to be headed for court.
It's all about money
The dispute centers around how much revenue Rams' owner Georgia Frontiere is willing to share with the league, which demanded 34 percent of the $70 million raised in St. Louis and additional funds for a new stadium in the Los Angeles area.
The NFL also wanted Ms. Frontiere to cover any rebate the Fox television network demands in compensation for losing Rams coverage in Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest TV market, for St. Louis, the 18th-largest market.
Many of the owners were envious of the profitable deal Frontiere was sitting on. ''The Rams in St. Louis, with the deal they have, would be making $25 million while I'd be in New England losing $10 million,'' says Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. ''In 1999 there is no salary cap, and what kind of chance would I have trying to compete against that?'' Owners of less profitable teams fear that their top players may be lured away with big salaries from deep-pocket teams like the Rams.
But in St. Louis, the euphoria unleashed in January with the signing of the relocation agreement has turned to anger at being snubbed for the third time by the NFL. After losing the football Cardinals to Phoenix in 1988 and failing to win an expansion team in 1993, the victory was sweet for St. Louisans.
More than 74,000 supportive fans applied for 46,000 personal-seat licenses, paying from $250 to $4,500 for the right to purchase season tickets for the same seat every year.
The owners' vote in Phoenix last week was supposed to be a mere technicality. Construction workers completing the $260 million stadium near the St. Louis Arch have already painted ''Home of the Rams'' across the new building's girders. And Rams T-shirts were selling fast at local sports stores. The nixing of the deal has embarassed some St. Louisans who worry about the city's national image after three NFL rebuffs. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon is threatening to sue the NFL for violating federal antitrust laws.
''The Rams are resolute to go ahead on the legal front, as are we,'' said Thomas Eagleton, head of FANS Inc., the group that negotiated the deal. But others say the city can only blame itself. ''If anything made us look silly it was the delirium with which we agreed to a deal that was legalized extortion,'' said Bob Costas, a sports commentator and St. Louis resident.
Antitrust allegations
''The NFL teams are separate, independent businesses that compete with one another on and off the field,'' Mr. Nixon says. ''If the other NFL teams and the Rams' competitors act as a cartel to stop them from doing business in the city of their choice, it would be a classic restraint of trade. We're not going to stand by on the sidelines and let the smoke-filled-room cartel of the NFL take away what we've earned.''
The league has a losing record in antitrust lawsuits. In the early 1980s, Raiders' owner Al Davis sued the NFL and won the right to move his team from Oakland to Los Angeles and was awarded $48 million in damages.
In a game of high-stakes chicken, despite threats, the lawsuits may never materialize. ''This is all a negotiating ploy to get more money out of Georgia [Frontiere],'' says Joseph Alioto, a San Francisco lawyer who won the Raiders' case.
But Frontiere is vowing to fight back. ''The last chapter has yet to be written, and I look forward to a happy ending,'' she says. ''You know, the last play of the game is when the quarterback kneels to run out the clock. I am not going to be the quarterback kneeling. The clock is still ticking.''
http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0320/20081.html
St. Louis Blues: Fans Threaten Suit As NFL Blocks Rams's Exit From L.A.
Stadium is there. T-shirts are printed. Now all the city needs is a team.
By Laurel Shaper Walters, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor MARCH 20, 1995
ST. LOUIS — IN the multimillion-dollar game of National Football League ownership, failing to share a pot of gold does not go uncontested.
Football-hungry fans in St. Louis handed over $74 million to show their devotion to the sport and lock in a deal relocating the Rams here from Los Angeles.
But last week the NFL owners voted against the move, which would have given the Rams the most profitable franchise in the league. The vote was 21 to 3, with six owners abstaining. Now the issue appears to be headed for court.
It's all about money
The dispute centers around how much revenue Rams' owner Georgia Frontiere is willing to share with the league, which demanded 34 percent of the $70 million raised in St. Louis and additional funds for a new stadium in the Los Angeles area.
The NFL also wanted Ms. Frontiere to cover any rebate the Fox television network demands in compensation for losing Rams coverage in Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest TV market, for St. Louis, the 18th-largest market.
Many of the owners were envious of the profitable deal Frontiere was sitting on. ''The Rams in St. Louis, with the deal they have, would be making $25 million while I'd be in New England losing $10 million,'' says Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. ''In 1999 there is no salary cap, and what kind of chance would I have trying to compete against that?'' Owners of less profitable teams fear that their top players may be lured away with big salaries from deep-pocket teams like the Rams.
But in St. Louis, the euphoria unleashed in January with the signing of the relocation agreement has turned to anger at being snubbed for the third time by the NFL. After losing the football Cardinals to Phoenix in 1988 and failing to win an expansion team in 1993, the victory was sweet for St. Louisans.
More than 74,000 supportive fans applied for 46,000 personal-seat licenses, paying from $250 to $4,500 for the right to purchase season tickets for the same seat every year.
The owners' vote in Phoenix last week was supposed to be a mere technicality. Construction workers completing the $260 million stadium near the St. Louis Arch have already painted ''Home of the Rams'' across the new building's girders. And Rams T-shirts were selling fast at local sports stores. The nixing of the deal has embarassed some St. Louisans who worry about the city's national image after three NFL rebuffs. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon is threatening to sue the NFL for violating federal antitrust laws.
''The Rams are resolute to go ahead on the legal front, as are we,'' said Thomas Eagleton, head of FANS Inc., the group that negotiated the deal. But others say the city can only blame itself. ''If anything made us look silly it was the delirium with which we agreed to a deal that was legalized extortion,'' said Bob Costas, a sports commentator and St. Louis resident.
Antitrust allegations
''The NFL teams are separate, independent businesses that compete with one another on and off the field,'' Mr. Nixon says. ''If the other NFL teams and the Rams' competitors act as a cartel to stop them from doing business in the city of their choice, it would be a classic restraint of trade. We're not going to stand by on the sidelines and let the smoke-filled-room cartel of the NFL take away what we've earned.''
The league has a losing record in antitrust lawsuits. In the early 1980s, Raiders' owner Al Davis sued the NFL and won the right to move his team from Oakland to Los Angeles and was awarded $48 million in damages.
In a game of high-stakes chicken, despite threats, the lawsuits may never materialize. ''This is all a negotiating ploy to get more money out of Georgia [Frontiere],'' says Joseph Alioto, a San Francisco lawyer who won the Raiders' case.
But Frontiere is vowing to fight back. ''The last chapter has yet to be written, and I look forward to a happy ending,'' she says. ''You know, the last play of the game is when the quarterback kneels to run out the clock. I am not going to be the quarterback kneeling. The clock is still ticking.''
http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0320/20081.html
- Status