New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

So you're implying that the NFL would lie to Peacock just to keep him moving forward? Telling someone they control their own destiny is a little more than just giving him a shove to keep going.

I'm not implying that, I'm outright saying it. NFL lies all the time, why would this time be any different?

 

[iced]

Wait a minute. Can you show me where he has said that? I think that is going a bit beyond what he said or was told by the NFL. I suppose if it is allowing that they won't be building anything if Stan doesn't agree to move the team into it but what you said here makes it look as if Stan wouldn't have a choice if they just build a stadium.

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_2edfa1b8-7025-5b4e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html

 

[bluecoconuts]

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_2edfa1b8-7025-5b4e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html

Paragraph above it

Peacock said planners have received no guarantees from the NFL that St. Louis will continue to have a football team.

 

[The Ripper]

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_2edfa1b8-7025-5b4e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html

“Your supposition is that it’s just public money that turns the key in the lock that opens the door that makes the market viable,” said Grubman, as quoted by the Orange County Register. “That’s not all there is. Let’s put the pieces together. You have to have a stadium and a financing plan … You have to have a market assessment that suggests that the market can and will be healthy for the long term so that stadium plan is supported.

“And if you do that then you’ve demonstrated viability against relocation guidelines, but it still goes to a vote. But the reason I make that distinction is that I could see a scenario where a financing plan is assembled and land is assembled and an entitlement is assembled but the market assessment is dim. And in that scenario, I don’t know that the owners would necessarily feel compelled to keep the team there.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_8098b84e-dd1a-589a-a6a0-e258b319899d.html

 

[dbrooks25]

Man, I swear, we find something to go back and forth everyday. People wonder how we got to 11,000 posts and this is why. It's like a tv show's spin off had a spin off and then that spin off had a spin off and so on and so forth.

 

[beej]

Paragraph above it

when you put those paragraphs in the order that the Post Dispatch did it makes more sense, at least to me.

Peacock said planners have received no guarantees from the NFL that St. Louis will continue to have a football team.

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

I interpret it as:
We are not just going to guarantee you a team. If you want a team put together a complete plan, do that and you control your destiny.

I'm sure other people interpret it differently.

 

[ChrisW]

Come on man - really?

But can you show where Peacock said what you are saying he did? The part about them controlling their own destiny with the Rams if they build a stadium? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I don't recall seeing it.

 

[dieterbrock]

Man, I swear, we find something to go back and forth everyday. People wonder how we got to 11,000 posts and this is why. It's like a tv show's spin off had a spin off and then that spin off had a spin off and so on and so forth.

You say it like its a bad thing. Lol
I liked Mork and Mindy which was a spin off of a spin off.....

 

[blue4]

That was one of the past statements that gave me some hope, I'm glad you found it. I was sure that I heard that at one point in a hearing.
However, this could be construed as something that might be good for ST Louis and we can't have that so......

He may have testified that before the MO house, but that means nothing and he's probably lying anyway.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

You say it like its a bad thing. Lol
I liked Mork and Mindy which was a spin off of a spin off.....

I like the Jeffersons

 

[MrMotes]

you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,

There's that "NFL team" instead of The Rams thing again...

 

[RamFan503]

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_2edfa1b8-7025-5b4e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html

I suppose it would depend on what ends up being considered their portion of the financing and a design that works but I still think the NFL and everyone surrounding the stadium issues is being intentionally ambiguous. Saying the NFL hasn't guaranteed us anything but yet we can control our own destiny sounds like Peacock taking a page out of Grubman's playbook. He wants people to think that all they have to do is get the financing in place as they see it, and it's a done deal. That would be nice but I don't think anyone believes it is that simple.

 

[bluecoconuts]

when you put those paragraphs in the order that the Post Dispatch did it makes more sense, at least to me.

Peacock said planners have received no guarantees from the NFL that St. Louis will continue to have a football team.

“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.

I interpret it as:
We are not just going to guarantee you a team. If you want a team put together a complete plan, do that and you control your destiny.

I'm sure other people interpret it differently.

It's double speak. If St Louis controls their own destiny as it relates to an NFL team, then obviously getting everything wrapped up should mean they get to keep the team. However they say that they make no promises they can keep the team.

It gives them the ability to either say "Oh you didn't get the financing wrapped up in time, too bad." Or if they check all the boxes, they can say "Well you didn't get the owner to sign on, you just had to do that, sorry."

Which circles back to my point of the NFL will happily tell any city to piss off if they feel it's best for them. The only way to guarantee the Rams stay is to get Kroenke to sign onto a deal. Getting a plan and financing just leaves it in the hands of the NFL, that's not controlling your own destiny.

 

[RamFan503]

That was one of the past statements that gave me some hope, I'm glad you found it. I was sure that I heard that at one point in a hearing.
However, this could be construed as something that might be good for ST Louis and we can't have that so......

He may have testified that before the MO house, but that means nothing and he's probably lying anyway.

See - here's the thing - and I realize you may think of it as just dismissive but the part between "told by the league" and "control your own destiny" is pretty key - don't you think? Words like "contingent" and "expect" when you are talking about Stan buying into your plan, is kind of the crux of this whole thing. Without that - in other words Stan's acceptance - there is no destiny to control. You really can't leave those parts out of his statement and think it is the same as what he said.

I still think the Rams are going to stay in the Lou but it won't be without Stan agreeing to their offer. If what they have is good enough for Stan then doing the things listed will indeed allow the task force to control their own destiny. The $64,000 question is if their offer is good enough and none of us know what that offer is or will become.

 

[rick6fan]

Breach, as a standalone word may imply illegality, but a "breach of contract" usually has no such implication, as far as my limited brain can recall. Perhaps you have in your mind that breach is a bad thing, but it usually represents a business decision by one of the parties not to abide by the contract, which until I've heard otherwise, I believe the CVC has committed. I'd still like clarification as to whether the year to year was actually an option or a remedy for an event of default, since I've yet to see the actual contract.

Breach of contract is a big deal, it does usually represent a business decision by one of the parties not to abide by the contract, and is usually followed by litigation.

But the CVC DID NOT breach the contract, nor did the Rams. Breach of contract is a legal term that means someone didn't fulfill their legal responsibilities. Both sides satisfied the terms of the lease, the CVC exercised their right to decline the arbiters' decision, the Rams exercised their right to a year to year lease.

 

[RamFan503]

Breach of contract is a big deal, it does usually represent a business decision by one of the parties not to abide by the contract, and is usually followed by litigation.

But the CVC DID NOT breach the contract, nor did the Rams. Breach of contract is a legal term that means someone didn't fulfill their legal responsibilities. Both sides satisfied the terms of the lease, the CVC exercised their right to decline the arbiters' decision, the Rams exercised their right to a year to year lease.

OK - Semantics aside:

So as someone who would be expected to do future business with an entity that twice decided it was not in their favor to fulfill the terms of a lease, how comfortable would you be in having them as a partner in your next lease? Would you have confidence that they would keep the stadium in top class condition? I'm not talking about a 25% clause here but you have to admit that any NFL team is going to expect a stadium in keeping with the rest of the league - certainly not allowing it to fall to a status that is considered one of the worst.

I will qualify this last statement in that I have never been to the Dome (opening day will be my first time) and don't know if the worst in the league talk is all BS. I have been to many stadiums so I can give my two cents after actually being there.

Personally, I view this as a big problem brought on by the CVC's inaction over the past 10 years. Maybe they restructure the CVC and Authority or something. Maybe they figure out a way to have Stan own the stadium. Maybe the people in the Lou have it right in that the CVC just did what they had to do and Stan gets that. I dunno. But from the outside looking in (which is what we are all doing), I can't see it being a non-issue going forward.

 

[MrMotes]

So as someone who would be expected to do future business with an entity that twice decided it was not in their favor to fulfill the terms of a lease, how comfortable would you be in having them as a partner in your next lease? Would you have confidence that they would keep the stadium in top class condition? I'm not talking about a 25% clause here but you have to admit that any NFL team is going to expect a stadium in keeping with the rest of the league - certainly not allowing it to fall to a status that is considered one of the worst.

Exactly.

The CVC didn't do what was in the lease, what was in their power to keep the Rams bound to St. Louis. They chose not to.

Now they want the NFL to do what could've done themselves: keep the Rams from leaving.

The Rams are free to leave, according to the lease, because of what the CVC chose to do.

Now they want the NFL to do what they wouldn't?

I'm not sure how well that plays...

 

[rick6fan]

OK - Semantics aside:

So as someone who would be expected to do future business with an entity that twice decided it was not in their favor to fulfill the terms of a lease, how comfortable would you be in having them as a partner in your next lease? Would you have confidence that they would keep the stadium in top class condition? I'm not talking about a 25% clause here but you have to admit that any NFL team is going to expect a stadium in keeping with the rest of the league - certainly not allowing it to fall to a status that is considered one of the worst.

I will qualify this last statement in that I have never been to the Dome (opening day will be my first time) and don't know if the worst in the league talk is all BS. I have been to many stadiums so I can give my two cents after actually being there.

Personally, I view this as a big problem brought on by the CVC's inaction over the past 10 years. Maybe they restructure the CVC and Authority or something. Maybe they figure out a way to have Stan own the stadium. Maybe the people in the Lou have it right in that the CVC just did what they had to do and Stan gets that. I dunno. But from the outside looking in (which is what we are all doing), I can't see it being a non-issue going forward.

A good contract is mutually beneficial. If the Rams and St. Louis can come to an agreement that satisfies both of their requirements, a deal will get done. Since the lease terms were fulfilled completely, your question about comfort is moot. The Dome is in good condition, it's just not fancy. The CVC could have done more to make it better, but it never could be made top tier for significantly less than it would cost to build a new stadium. That's why they declined the arbitration.

I've been to KC, Tennessee, Chicago, Minnesota, Tampa, Green Bay and Houston and I can say that the Dome falls in the same category as these stadiums. I've also been to Indy, Seattle and Dallas and the Dome falls flat compared to them.

 

[blue4]

See - here's the thing - and I realize you may think of it as just dismissive but the part between "told by the league" and "control your own destiny" is pretty key - don't you think? Words like "contingent" and "expect" when you are talking about Stan buying into your plan, is kind of the crux of this whole thing. Without that - in other words Stan's acceptance - there is no destiny to control. You really can't leave those parts out of his statement and think it is the same as what he said.

I still think the Rams are going to stay in the Lou but it won't be without Stan agreeing to their offer. If what they have is good enough for Stan then doing the things listed will indeed allow the task force to control their own destiny. The $64,000 question is if their offer is good enough and none of us know what that offer is or will become.

Well, I was using blue font, not really making any argument or statement. But I believe the the point was that the NFL was supportive if we got our ducks lined up, not that it would be a game set and match. We realize that Stan needs to buy in. I do believe that this means that if we get our stuff lined out the NFL will push a little to keep St Louis as an NFL market, especially since it doesn't seem likely that the other two situations will be solved in their home markets. That's all.

To be honest my comment was more a touch of sarcasm. Lately it seems that any news or argument that seems to look good for ST Louis is raked over looking for flaws. Almost gleefully at times. Any statement resembling "this may be good" is guaranteed to get a multi paragraph response pointing out how very little is good for ST Louis.

 

[The Ripper]

A good contract is mutually beneficial. If the Rams and St. Louis can come to an agreement that satisfies both of their requirements, a deal will get done. Since the lease terms were fulfilled completely, your question about comfort is moot. The Dome is in good condition, it's just not fancy. The CVC could have done more to make it better, but it never could be made top tier for significantly less than it would cost to build a new stadium. That's why they declined the arbitration.

I've been to KC, Tennessee, Chicago, Minnesota, Tampa, Green Bay and Houston and I can say that the Dome falls in the same category as these stadiums. I've also been to Indy, Seattle and Dallas and the Dome falls flat compared to them.

The CVC was required to maintain the facility to the top tier standard at all times with measuring dates every 10 years. There were no major renovations done in 20 years as stated by the NFL in the Market Survey.

We're dealing with the NFL no mutually beneficial contracts with home markets.