@The Ripper So you don't agree that Georgia received permission to move through an NFL owners vote? Really? You have ignored every question I ask you because we both know the answers that you don't like.
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
He's bluffing and preparing his plan B. Those are the cards he has.
I have no doubt he will move if Saint Louis doesn't build. Kroenke wins either way. He's a smart dude. Playing Saint Louis like a fiddle.
Sure, the threat played into it. So did the extra millions they extorted.
I'm glad Kroenke isn't threatening anything or even saying he wants to move.
bluecoconuts
Legend
I don't know specifics, since this happened before I moved to the states, but from my understanding he came on after the Rams were trying to move and helped cover the extra cost to essentially buy the "yes" votes from the NFL. He wasn't the driving force for them to move, but I'm sure there are others that know far more on the subject than I do.
That's part of the issue though, the NFL cares about making money and doing things right, so while the Rams could make it work in St Louis, if Kroenke is dead set on leaving, and he can make the NFL the most money, AND has set things up so if needed the NFL can direct a team to St Louis, I think they can easily give him the green light. NFL cares about the NFL, when it boils down to it they probably don't give two shits about what anyone in LA or St Louis thinks.
Inglewood is a two team stadium, it's highly likely that there would be two teams in Inglewood, unless the Chargers and Raiders both find new digs, either way the NFL wins. Two teams in Inglewood makes more than two teams in Carson.
Apparently he told the NFL he would do so. While I don't think he'd be writing checks to build them stadiums or anything, he can bring in one team to Inglewood with him, and then direct funds (Super Bowl money perhaps) to the other. There will be more than one Super Bowl in LA.
Well if the city didn't want to work with him before LA, and there's a lot of word from both the fans and even the task force about him not being the owner of the Rams anymore, I'd say he has a pretty good case that it's a toxic market for him.
They haven't said they're not moving either, and before you quote that Demoff lawyer speak, that doesn't say that they're either staying, or want to stay, at most it's saying that they're giving St Louis a fighting chance, it doesn't say if they will or wont take it the deal.
Why do they need to bluff though? What else is St Louis going to offer? We're not seeing major overhauls to the proposal, the city isn't allowed (by law) to give the land to Kroenke so he can own everything including the dirt, as he likes, a big selling point was publicly owned, so it would be a hard selling point to do a 180 on that issue.. If Kroenke is just bluffing why did the NFL need to twist his arm to get Demoff to work with St Louis? That makes zero sense.
The Ripper
Starter
She was approved to move for one reason. The threat of a lawsuit. I sent you the link please read it. Taglibue said that in his response to congress. There were no extra millions the relocation fee went to the lower revenue teams not to all the owners. The PSL's were split but that is standard for revenue sharing.
"The Rams had not, in Commissioner Tagliabue's view and in the view of most NFL club owners, met the League's relocation guidelines. While several other factors unique to St. Louis or to the Rams also came into play, the overhanging threat of protracted, divisive, and burdensome antitrust litigation the outcome of which would not have been known for years, which would have drawn on prior case law improperly treating League members as independent business competitors, and which would have taken place in St. Louis - was the principal element in the League's ultimate decision to approve the Rams' relocation. The threat of a home-town verdict rendered in a distinctly self- interested forum, and the potential treble-damage exposure associated with such a verdict, was a prohibitive hsk for NFL clubs that otherwise would have preferred to enforce their contractual rights to have the Rams remain in Southern California.
Other NFL clubs would "profit directly" by the Rams' relocation only to the extent that superior fan support in the new location engenders larger visiting team shares from gate receipts for those clubs who play the Rams in St. Louis. However, such higher revenue levels create offsetting costs for all NFL clubs as they increase the player salary cap.
The Rams also agreed to pay a relocation fee, partly in recognition of the fact that their franchise value would be substantially enhanced largely as a result of the intense interest in and commitment to an NFL presence in St. Louis that the League, rather than the Rams themselves, had generated. As explained in Commissioner Tagliabue's December 8, 1995 letter to Senator DeWine (copy attached as Exhibit 1 ). the proceeds of that fee are earmarked for distribution to the League's lowest-revenue clubs, to ameliorate the effects on those clubs of the increases in operating costs that a stadium-induced relocation engenders for all NFL teams. A relocation fee itself is not an inducement to approve an otherwise-unjustified franchise move. "
Last edited:
Well, which is it? No extra millions or relocation fees and PSL's?
If I recall, they got $26 million extra between the no vote and yes vote.
And yet they forced her to pay more. So was it a part of the decision or not? If it had nothing to do with it, why did they ask and why did she agree? If it was just the threat of a suit, say no, I won't pay more, I'll sue.
Regardless, Kroenke has already said he WILL go along with the NFL. Are we going to ignore his organization's public statements again in trade for conjecture?
The Ripper
Starter
Georgia didn't pay more it was St Louis. The relocation fee and additional shared revenues is nothing compared with a $6 billion judgement so the additional funds weren't even a minor consideration.
When did he say that? No one knows whether he will or won't sue the NFL over relocation. There are reports both ways in regards to litigation.
He was a force involved in making the move happen. He had been trying for many years if I recall. He was a vocal proponent for an NFL team, and then the Rams, in Saint Louis.
He will have to address his many statements about the Rams and Saint Louis if he tries to move the team.
I disagree. They don't profit by stripping two cities of their teams to please Kroenke and alienating millions of fans.
It's not "so while the Rams could make it work in St Louis", the Rams DO work in Saint Louis. We have a long history of supporting the Rams even when they suck.
Kroenke has never mentioned inviting a second team. It could just be that he is planning a home for the Raiders and Chargers.
Why bluff? To make sure he gets his new stadium. Kroenke doesn't need ownership to be the owner in all ways that matter.
Why are all the Inglewood fans claiming the NFL twisted their arm? I'm just confused as to how all of this information just magically appeared as facts.
Facts:
Kroenke has never said he intends to move. Quite the opposite.
Saint Louis is building a stadium.
Kroenke has wanted a better stadium for his team.
The NFL favors the home city.
The Rams are participating in designing and supporting the new stadium.
The NFL encouraged the new stadium.
All Kroenke has in LA is multi-purpose land and drawings.
Kroenke has stated he will do as the NFL says.
The NFL said there won't be three teams in LA and the Raiders and Chargers need a new home where Kroenke does not.
No other team has shown any interest in moving to Saint Louis.
All of the statements people are making about the Rams moving are opinion and rumor. They're fun to discuss, but they are not reality based on the facts at hand.
Georgia was forced to share her PSLs, which she didn't want to do.
You said "There were no extra millions". That was incorrect. Do we agree that was incorrect or are you standing by that statement?
Kroenke has stated through his organization that he WILL comply with the NFL's wishes. It's out there for you to find. I'm done showing you the quotes you ignore. There are no reports that he intends to sue. None. That's 100% made up.
The Ripper
Starter
PSL's are shared revenues nothing forced about it.
Yes, The extra money from relocation didn't matter. Read the link you asked for. Taglibue testified it was the threat of the lawsuit.
There have been quotes both ways.
You have provided no facts to any of your assumptions.
Last edited:
You said "There were no extra millions". That was incorrect. Do we agree that was incorrect or are you standing by that statement?
The Ripper
Starter
You're intentionally causing issues. The increase in relocation was minimal in comparison to the lawsuit and that's what matters. Yes, I am standing by my statement. The NFL sets the relocation fee and the application was rejected so there was no fee assigned.
It's a simple question, not that you will answer any. Are you Kroenke?
You said "There were no extra millions". That was incorrect. Do we agree that was incorrect or are you standing by that statement?
Let's clear the board of false statements so we can get to the truth, then we won't be speading falsehoods to others.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Again, I'll have to defer to someone else, I know he was involved, but I haven't heard much about him being the driving force, especially for many years. If I recall he was trying to buy the Patriots sometime before that as well, and I don't think it was with the goal to move them to St Louis. I think he just wanted an NFL team, and he saw an opportunity to do so with the Rams. Had it been going the other way, with Georgia trying to get out of St Louis instead of in, I think he would have jumped at the chance still.
Two teams get stripped of their cities and millions of fans are alienated either way. St Louis county has about a million residents, contrasted to San Diego county who has 3.2 million, and Alameda county (where Oakland is) has 1.5 million. Either way two cities and millions of fans will lose their home team. The argument that the Rams could make is they'll be coming back to LA county and the 10 million fans they left in the first place. In terms of making it work, again I do think the Rams work there, and I think they can work there long term.. However if market studies aren't good (and last we heard they weren't) and the Rams are the least valuable team in the NFL (which they are) then Kroenke has some numbers to back up that it's not working for them. Numbers don't lie.
He's building a two team facility, and recent word is that he told the NFL he'll let them pick the second team to join him in LA and he would assist the team left out. That just came out a week or so ago (the helping the third team out thing) bringing a second team into LA to join has been there from the start. Kroenke is not spending two billion dollars in LA for two different teams, not getting to enjoy that stadium, and then turning around and spending over half a billion for himself in St Louis, that's completely ridiculous.
If the new stadium is defenetly being built as you claim, then why does he need to continue to make sure? Is St Louis going to pull the plug as soon as he can't go to LA anymore? Kroenke likes to own and operate his stadium and "own everything including the dirt", and he doesn't get that with the Riverfront stadium, and can't get that with the Riverfront stadium. That's probably a pretty big sticking point for him, and it's a lot of lost potential revenue.
Actually most of those claims have came from St Louis fans who use it to support that they're not negotiating in good faith with the city. However it originates from an article discussing the stadium situations.
Kroenke made that statement when he first took over the team. Since the process has started (back during arbitration) he hasn't made a whimper about wanting to stay. Back when I was 10 years old I said I wanted to be a fighter pilot. Many years, and no attempts to become a fighter pilot later, I think most people would say that the situation has changed.
Of course he wants a better stadium for his team, he'd get one in Inglewood, arguably the best stadium in the history of the NFL to this point.
In terms of the NFL favoring the home city, I'll point out, they're in favor of not one, but two teams in LA, meaning they favor LA over at least "two" home cities... I don't think they favor any home cities, I think they favor money.
The Rams are also participating in designing and supporting Inglewood... And they're paying for it, which they aren't in St Louis.
NFL also encourages LA.
He also has every box checked other than the permits (which take a while and are in the process of getting, which no other potentials stadium has done), and the land is ready for the stadium, including old structures blown up.
Kroenke hasn't stated he'd do as the NFL wishes, those close to him have only indicated that they believe he would allow the NFL to vote on the matter. They didn't say he would honor the vote or anything like that. That was when some suggested he'd just up and move without even bringing it to a vote.
Kroenke does need a new home, the Dome is horribly outdated. The argument is does he need a new city? I'd say the Chargers need a new home but not a new city either. Raiders need a new home, but it's debatable if they need a new city (since Davis says he would love to stay if he had the money).
The Ripper
Starter
The Ripper
Starter
Simple answer. The NFL sets the relocation fee and the application was rejected so no fee which means that it wasn't increased because it didn't exist.
I'm not causing issues, I'm trying to make sure everyone knows what happened.
The NFL rejected the application to move to STL. Then they passed her application for an additional $50 million total. What you said was simply not true.
If you can't agree on proven facts, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.
Stan Kroenke was able to buy his share of the Rams as a stipulation of the move from LA.
He didn't have anything to do with the decision to move to St Louis but used it to his personal advantage to gain NFL ownership.
The idea that he was a "driving force" in the move is just untrue
He didn't have anything to do with the decision to move to St Louis but used it to his personal advantage to gain NFL ownership.
The idea that he was a "driving force" in the move is just untrue
- Status