New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

Sure he can, they can't force him to accept a stadium he doesn't want. The NFL can't really force him to do anything, they can deter him from moving by withholding things, but if he decides to just go anyway, short of a lawsuit, there's really not much they can do. I don't even know if they could force him to pay any fines without a lawsuit. Plus if they forced Stan he could tank the St Louis market out of spite. It's an extreme option of course, I don't think he would or would want to, but they can't make him put money into the city.

I never once said they would force him to spend his money. What I said was, they can keep him in STL playing in the dome until he decides to spend money on the riverfront stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I never once said they would force him to spend his money. What I said was, they can keep him in STL playing in the dome until he decides to spend money on the riverfront stadium.

How? What if he says "Screw you I wont paying, and I don't care if you don't give me ad revenue or a Super Bowl, I'll do it myself"? I don't see how they can force him to do anything. What if he stays but instead of spending money on the stadium, he just tanks the market, fires the staff, puts the internal cap extremely low so they can't field a good team? It's hurts the NFL more than it hurts him, then what do they do?

 

[ChrisW]

How? What if he says "Screw you I wont paying, and I don't care if you don't give me ad revenue or a Super Bowl, I'll do it myself"? I don't see how they can force him to do anything. What if he stays but instead of spending money on the stadium, he just tanks the market, fires the staff, puts the internal cap extremely low so they can't field a good team? It's hurts the NFL more than it hurts him, then what do they do?

It's not just ad revenue. He'd lose TV revenue, and his portion of away ticket sales.

As far as tanking. I wouldn't want to mess with the shield on that matter. It wouldn't end up too well for Kroenke.

You're taking the word "force" to literally. They can't and won't physically stop him from going. But if he moves without a yes vote, away from the city that is waiting to build him a new stadium, he's going to lose all his profits. He'd also might as well say bye-bye to housing NFL TV's west headquarters in that scenario too.

 

[Sum1]

How? What if he says "Screw you I wont paying, and I don't care if you don't give me ad revenue or a Super Bowl, I'll do it myself"? I don't see how they can force him to do anything. What if he stays but instead of spending money on the stadium, he just tanks the market, fires the staff, puts the internal cap extremely low so they can't field a good team? It's hurts the NFL more than it hurts him, then what do they do?

Back to reality...he isn't going to diminish his investment.

There is a line between being bold and being stupid. That would be stupid.


Kroenke could go rogue, I don't doubt that. But it is only going to happen if his losses are minimal before getting to the richer other side. He isn't going to give up revenue sharing on the long term just to stick it to the NFL.

 

[dieterbrock]

That's not the way it works. Kroenke has shown that he's willing to shell out plenty of capital to build a stadium in LA. He can't just turn down a half funded stadium in St. Louis because he wants LA.

If the NFL sees STL's plan as viable, then Kroenke will have to stay put in the dome until he puts up the money to help the city. That is, of course, if he doesn't get the yes votes to move.

Now I'm confused, I thought that's what you were suggesting? That if he doesnt support the stadium, then he'll be stuck in the dome?
And actually, yeah it could work that way. The NFL cant force him to invest 200 mill just because he may have the wherewithall to fund more in LA

 

[RamFan503]

That's not the way it works. Kroenke has shown that he's willing to shell out plenty of capital to build a stadium in LA. He can't just turn down a half funded stadium in St. Louis because he wants LA.

The only problem I have with this statement is that, if we are going by the idea that Stan wants out of St Louis and into LA, the NFL is seriously interfering with his ability to conduct his business as he sees fit. I get the franchise stuff and anti-trust status and all that but I'm going to guess that if it were to go to court, the Supreme's ruling that the NFL is made up of 32 independent businesses will likely come into the equation.

A half funded stadium where Stan is only able to recoup his share of NFL allotted revenues and nothing else from his essentially $450 million investment, would be potentially difficult to defend. It's just my guess on how it would go if he really wanted to push it.

He is offering to build without public money. I think that frees him up from a lot of potential restrictions. I think it also would be viewed positively by members of the legislature that are grumbling about the idea of public monies being used to build stadiums. If anything, this kind of a project might save the NFL's anti-trust status as it is purely business without the taxpayers having to foot the bill for a potentially vagabond team.

All that being said, the best and only way for St Louis to keep the Rams is still to get a workable plan locked down with everything in place ASAP. If they do that, they would be applying the most pressure on everyone involved to vote against Stan and at minimum force a long drawn out process that would most negatively affect Stan.

 

[myronjax]

The only problem I have with this statement is that, if we are going by the idea that Stan wants out of St Louis and into LA, the NFL is seriously interfering with his ability to conduct his business as he sees fit. I get the franchise stuff and anti-trust status and all that but I'm going to guess that if it were to go to court, the Supreme's ruling that the NFL is made up of 32 independent businesses will likely come into the equation.

A half funded stadium where Stan is only able to recoup his share of NFL allotted revenues and nothing else from his essentially $450 million investment, would be potentially difficult to defend. It's just my guess on how it would go if he really wanted to push it.

He is offering to build without public money. I think that frees him up from a lot of potential restrictions. I think it also would be viewed positively by members of the legislature that are grumbling about the idea of public monies being used to build stadiums. If anything, this kind of a project might save the NFL's anti-trust status as it is purely business without the taxpayers having to foot the bill for a potentially vagabond team.

All that being said, the best and only way for St Louis to keep the Rams is still to get a workable plan locked down with everything in place ASAP. If they do that, they would be applying the most pressure on everyone involved to vote against Stan and at minimum force a long drawn out process that would most negatively affect Stan.

With the owner's meeting coming up in May, and discussions concerning LA on the agenda, IF St. Louis can have their efforts completed by then-a Herculean task that Mr. Peacock seems to have the stones to pull off, then the NFL and the owners HAVE to take notice. Maybe the drooling over Inglewood would subside, and bring some owners over to our side. One can hope.

 

[ChrisW]

The only problem I have with this statement is that, if we are going by the idea that Stan wants out of St Louis and into LA, the NFL is seriously interfering with his ability to conduct his business as he sees fit. I get the franchise stuff and anti-trust status and all that but I'm going to guess that if it were to go to court, the Supreme's ruling that the NFL is made up of 32 independent businesses will likely come into the equation.

A half funded stadium where Stan is only able to recoup his share of NFL allotted revenues and nothing else from his essentially $450 million investment, would be potentially difficult to defend. It's just my guess on how it would go if he really wanted to push it.

He is offering to build without public money. I think that frees him up from a lot of potential restrictions. I think it also would be viewed positively by members of the legislature that are grumbling about the idea of public monies being used to build stadiums. If anything, this kind of a project might save the NFL's anti-trust status as it is purely business without the taxpayers having to foot the bill for a potentially vagabond team.

All that being said, the best and only way for St Louis to keep the Rams is still to get a workable plan locked down with everything in place ASAP. If they do that, they would be applying the most pressure on everyone involved to vote against Stan and at minimum force a long drawn out process that would most negatively affect Stan.

Right. The LA project is good for everyone except the St. Louis fans.

I'm not accounting for Anti-trust at this time. It's one of those things were Stan is going to burn major bridges if he goes that route, and will probably make me stop following the team. Can the NFL still with hold his revenue if he wins an anti trust lawsuit?

 

[Sum1]

There is one thing that is certain...nobody in this thread knows what legal action the NFL, Kroenke, or any of the other parties can or will take. Nor do we know to what degree the NFL will uphold it's bylaws...nor to what degree the legal system will make the NFL and/or it's teams adhere to their procedures and bylaws.

There are simply too many unknowns for any declarations to be made.

 

[blue4]

There is one thing that is certain...nobody in this thread knows what legal action the NFL, Kroenke, or any of the other parties can or will take. Nor do we know to what degree the NFL will uphold it's bylaws...nor to what degree the legal system will make the NFL and/or it's teams adhere to their procedures and bylaws.

There are simply too many unknowns for any declarations to be made.

Exactly. No one knows if Stan will sue or not to move, and no one knows if he will win that suit or not. Draconis did a pretty good job before of showing how some of the previous rulings weren't intended to set precedent, and the courts in America have been wonky lately to say the least. I think Stan has a good shot, but I definitely wouldn't bet any of my own money on the outcome.

 

[RamFan503]

There is one thing that is certain...nobody in this thread knows what legal action the NFL, Kroenke, or any of the other parties can or will take. Nor do we know to what degree the NFL will uphold it's bylaws...nor to what degree the legal system will make the NFL and/or it's teams adhere to their procedures and bylaws.

There are simply too many unknowns for any declarations to be made.

Exactly. No one knows if Stan will sue or not to move, and no one knows if he will win that suit or not. Draconis did a pretty good job before of showing how some of the previous rulings weren't intended to set precedent, and the courts in America have been wonky lately to say the least. I think Stan has a good shot, but I definitely wouldn't bet any of my own money on the outcome.

Agree with both of these posts.

 

[RamFan503]

Right. The LA project is good for everyone except the St. Louis fans.

I'm not accounting for Anti-trust at this time. It's one of those things were Stan is going to burn major bridges if he goes that route, and will probably make me stop following the team. Can the NFL still with hold his revenue if he wins an anti trust lawsuit?

I'd probably refer to @Sum1 's post above. I really don't think anyone knows how that would shake out - that could very easily include Stan, Nixon, and the NFL.

 

[Hacksaw]

Ok. So you think that he'll be able to move just because of the stadium in LA? Or he'll be able to do whatever he wants?

I'm just trying to understand your angle.

No angle Rambro, just stating the obvious, 'we don't know what Stan wants.

As far as him being able to move. Sure he can. Will he if voted against. I don't know. What I think doesn't really matter because it has no bearing on what happens.
But what I think is that there is no way that the other owners will vote against him based on what StL does after the 7 year lapse of judgement/foresight by the CVC there.
StL's best chances are to build the thing on there own with no jack from Stan. That one could be a LA deal breaker. Or for Spanos' handfull of owner buddies to dig in and make some noise. JMO

 

[Hacksaw]

How? What if he says "Screw you I wont paying, and I don't care if you don't give me ad revenue or a Super Bowl, I'll do it myself"? I don't see how they can force him to do anything. What if he stays but instead of spending money on the stadium, he just tanks the market, fires the staff, puts the internal cap extremely low so they can't field a good team? It's hurts the NFL more than it hurts him, then what do they do?

That is just about exactly what Georgia did to get her way. That and lawsuits. She even threw around using the gender discrimination card.

 

[ChrisW]

But what I think is that there is no way that the other owners will vote against him based on what StL does after the 7 year lapse of judgement/foresight by the CVC there.
StL's best chances are to build the thing on there own with no jack from Stan.

I disagree. I feel the owners will vote against him if there's a half publicly funded stadium sitting on the table waiting for his contribution. That's a pretty damn good deal as far as NFL stadium funding is concerned.

 

[Hacksaw]

I disagree. I feel the owners will vote against him if there's a half publicly funded stadium sitting on the table waiting for his contribution. That's a pretty damn good deal as far as NFL stadium funding is concerned.

I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree and wait for those in charge to do something. I hope something can work out for all of us, but I don't see how.

 

[RAMbler]

I disagree. I feel the owners will vote against him if there's a half publicly funded stadium sitting on the table waiting for his contribution. That's a pretty damn good deal as far as NFL stadium funding is concerned.

I find it hard to agree with any part of this statement. Why would the owners vote against him based on a "HALF publicly funded" stadium WAITING for his contribution"...., when he is already involved with the building of a $1.8B stadium in a place the NFL wants to be? I just don't see how that's a "damn good deal as far as the NFL stadium funding is concerned"?

But like we're all saying these days. Just gotta agree to disagree.

 

[dbrooks25]

I find it hard to agree with any part of this statement. Why would the owners vote against him based on a "HALF publicly funded" stadium WAITING for his contribution"...., when he is already involved with the building of a $1.8B stadium in a place the NFL wants to be? I just don't see how that's a "damn good deal as far as the NFL stadium funding is concerned"?

But like we're all saying these days. Just gotta agree to disagree.

Because that's the way most of the new stadiums are being built these days. The city must be willing to pay a for a portion of the stadium, not ALL of the stadium. We are talking about the NFL bylaws in that an owner isn't supposed to be able to move his team just for financial gain and if the home city is talking about ponying up damn near half of the bill then that kinda goes against the "exhausting all options" with the current city thing they keep talking about. You think the city is supposed to cover the entire cost of the stadium? We have already received quotes from an owner stating that if a city is willing to get their half of a stadium funded then the NFL has an obligation to keep their product in that city. What's so hard to understand about that? Examples of new stadiums being built with "HALF publicly funded" money:

Minnesota Vikings: Public funds: $498 million Vikings contribution: $529 million

20-30% of the Falcons' new stadium is to be financed by the public, even.

Again, it's all about a city doing its part to keep a team. Everyone in this thread has gone back and forth on their beliefs regarding whether the owners will abide by the bylaws, but it is what is is. If the city of St. Louis nails down their portion of public funding, then it will make it hard for the NFL to just let the Rams leave as the city did what they were supposed to do. Then the question will be if they will turn their back on the city or honor their bylaws which is anyone's guess.

RAMbler, your post seems to suggest that the NFL is choosing between the Inglewood and Stl Stadium projects, and that isn't correct at all. If they are choosing between projects it would be Inglewood and Carson. St. Louis is just proving that they are willing to fund their half of the stadium in order to keep the team here and that is all the NFL is looking for from them along with fan support. Not that hard to understand, Chief.

 

[myronjax]

ugh..I just had a thought as bad as acid reflux..let's say St. Louis gets their ducks all aligned and the owners tell Enos no to relocation...and then the city of San Diego has a change of heart and decides it wants to keep the Chargers and finds a way to make them happy at home(unlikely, but work with me here)...that leaves LA with only one option: The Raiders...except that without the Carson project there's no place to play, because Davis doesn't have the deep pockets others have to go it alone... so they stay home in Oakland. Now LA is empty. Would the NFL have enough foresight to delay any Rams decision until the Chargers/Raiders act plays itself out, just in case they need to say "bylaws be damned, Stan's our man"...because we all know they WANT someone in LA and Stan can scratch that itch... And St. Louis is left standing at the altar. Too many scenarios !! I'm going to bed!!

 

[blue4]

ugh..I just had a thought as bad as acid reflux..let's say St. Louis gets their ducks all aligned and the owners tell Enos no to relocation...and then the city of San Diego has a change of heart and decides it wants to keep the Chargers and finds a way to make them happy at home(unlikely, but work with me here)...that leaves LA with only one option: The Raiders...except that without the Carson project there's no place to play, because Davis doesn't have the deep pockets others have to go it alone... so they stay home in Oakland. Now LA is empty. Would the NFL have enough foresight to delay any Rams decision until the Chargers/Raiders act plays itself out, just in case they need to say "bylaws be damned, Stan's our man"...because we all know they WANT someone in LA and Stan can scratch that itch... And St. Louis is left standing at the altar. Too many scenarios !! I'm going to bed!!

I hate to be pessimistic, but I think those of us from StL need to prepare for life without football. I don't think it's fair, definitely think it's against the bylaws, but I'm not sure it's going to matter. When Goodell and the rest put us on the same level as SD and Oakland at the owners meetings that indicates to me that fairness isn't going to come into play. Even if one counts negotiating between the CVC and the Rams (a negotiation neither side tried very hard to bring to a result); it's still at least half the time those other cities have been trying to build. Yet somehow we're on the same level of urgency to keep the team according to Goodell. At the end of the day money is going to win the day. As you said yourself, they're going to fill LA.