New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
bluecoconuts said:
Chargers open to working with the Rams is interesting, previously it seemed as if Spanos was anyone but Kroenke.
Click to expand...
When push comes to shove they'll both work it out unless they go rouge. LA is big enough for both. Fans of the Chargers will drive 2 hours north and watch them play in LA. It's hard to read these guys but Jone Maras recent interview was kinda saying both Stan and Spanos could work it out. That might be the dilemma behind closed doors between the NFL owners.
 
BuiltRamTough said:
When push comes to shove they'll both work it out unless they go rouge. LA is big enough for both. Fans of the Chargers will drive 2 hours north and watch them play in LA. It's hard to read these guys but Jone Maras recent interview was kinda saying both Stan and Spanos could work it out. That might be the dilemma behind closed doors between the NFL owners.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I believed that when it came down to the wire that Spanos would open up to Kroenke, but hearing them say that this early in the game is what caught my interest. I wonder if that's just them hedging bets, giving themselves more credibility against San Diego, or if there are discussions behind closed doors with the NFL indicating what they would rather have at this point.
 
bluecoconuts said:
Yeah, I believed that when it came down to the wire that Spanos would open up to Kroenke, but hearing them say that this early in the game is what caught my interest. I wonder if that's just them hedging bets, giving themselves more credibility against San Diego, or if there are discussions behind closed doors with the NFL indicating what they would rather have at this point.
Click to expand...
I always believed and still do that if the NFL wants to get maximum results in this whole stadium saga they have to work together behind closed doors. Stan was at the Chargers game last season and judging by the picture they seemed cool. This is business and people can turn on each other but something fishy is going on.

And why would Fabiani show one of his cards this soon? Why now, how does that help you. Isn't better to say " Inglewood is NOT an option right now". I get it these guys are pros at doing interviews and they do slip up occasionally on live air, they're human after all.


http://media.utsandiego.com/img/pho....jpg?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8
 
BuiltRamTough said:
Lol it's coo, I'm actually high right now watching hockey. Anyways my point is that why should Mark Davis get a free pass to LA when Spanos has been trying to get a stadium for 14 years and Stan really hasn't tried loll but at least he's putting in big money and has already bought the land and let's be honest he's been working on LA for a couple or more years now. I don't get that. Idk how Mark can make a case against Stan,
Click to expand...

I don't think its so much that Davis gets a free pass as much as Spanos needs Davis.

Davis and Spanos can easily make cases against Stan

Stan's a friggin realtor - there's a ton of options for that land.. its a win/win for him
 
BuiltRamTough said:
Mark is a weird ass dude. He's okay building a 55,00 seat stadium and sharing the market with the 49ers but he wouldn't want a riverfront stadium that seats 64,000 in a market where the Cardinals are worth the most in MLB and he's the only football stadium in town.

Mark seems like he just wants to stay home in Oakland and not make as much money as other NFL owners. He might be cool with being 32nd in the league in worth and revenue. Tbh that's a cool person as an owner. He's chill.
Click to expand...


He does seem to have his priorities straight, spending his money on strippers and booze instead of antagonizing fan bases across the country. Lol

I can't believe he goes out in public with that ridiculous hairdo though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
blue4 said:
He does seem to have his priorities straight, spending his money on strippers and booze instead of antagonizing fan bases across the country. Lol

I can't believe he goes out in public with that ridiculous hairdo though.
Click to expand...
Speaking of ridiculous hair cuts among owners
Kroenke_AdminCard_071912.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: blue4
iced said:
And why would you make that claim to 31 other business owners if it wasn't true, knowing they could easily look it up themselves?

This isn't kindergarden - these are billionaires, and they didn't get here by making outlandish claims that they can't back up
Click to expand...
It has already been said that the only way to confirm that is to actually look at the Chargers books which have never been open to the other 31 owners. And seriously. Billionaires make outlandish claims all the time. Especially if it is in the interest of protecting their interests.
 
RamFan503 said:
It has already been said that the only way to confirm that is to actually look at the Chargers books which have never been open to the other 31 owners. And seriously. Billionaires make outlandish claims all the time. Especially if it is in the interest of protecting their interests.
Click to expand...

got proof/link?
 
iced said:
got proof/link?
Click to expand...
No more than Spanos has of his claim of 25% of the LA market. I'm not going to try to chase down articles on this subject. I've seen it but not sure where. Are you suggesting that NFL team books are open to the other owners? Ask Khan to see his. Or are you saying Spanos has demonstrated his claim anywhere at any time?
 
RamFan503 said:
No more than Spanos has of his claim of 25% of the LA market. I'm not going to try to chase down articles on this subject. I've seen it but not sure where. Are you suggesting that NFL team books are open to the other owners? Ask Khan to see his. Or are you saying Spanos has demonstrated his claim anywhere at any time?
Click to expand...

Well I've never heard of that. All 32 owners are collectively business partners, and as a whole they share revenue. Ticket sales would be part of an argument for moving/relocating and establishing home markets, so I find it hard to believe they can/do refuse to show their books when making a statement that can easily be backed up or validated. And that's the other thing - you're gonna lie and make false claims to other people you all collectively share business with? not a prudent move imo

Edit: I think its completely hogwash now that I think about - the NFL would most lilely get that information when the cities undergo the the market studies
 
Last edited:
iced said:
Well I've never heard of that. All 32 owners are collectively business partners, and as a whole they share revenue. Ticket sales would be part of an argument for moving/relocating and establishing home markets, so I find it hard to believe they can/do refuse to show their books when making a statement that can easily be backed up or validated. And that's the other thing - you're gonna lie and make false claims to other people you all collectively share business with? not a prudent move imo
Click to expand...
They don't actually share their business with the other 31 owners. The NFL knows how many tickets are "sold" and apparel is licensed by the NFL in part for being able to split it among 31 owners (Jeruh does his own thing). But the NFL doesn't actually do the selling of a team's tickets and would only get whatever information a team chose to give them.

I don't really think it matters in the grand scheme of things. Any team that would have a large city as the next closest open market is going to get a fair number of fans coming from that area. I am 5 hours away from Seattle and yet I know a fair number of people who go up there to watch games. Should Portland not be able to get a team because Seattle sells some tickets to Oregonians? San Antonio is trying to get a team. Do you think there are not a pretty good faction of Cowgirl fans in SA? What about Houston before they got their team?

LA is a separate market from SD. How many fans Spanos wants to claim from another market is not only dubious IMO but is also irrelevant when it comes to saying another team shouldn't be allowed to move there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuiltRamTough
RamFan503 said:
They don't actually share their business with the other 31 owners. The NFL knows how many tickets are "sold" and apparel is licensed by the NFL in part for being able to split it among 31 owners (Jeruh does his own thing). But the NFL doesn't actually do the selling of a team's tickets and would only get whatever information a team chose to give them.
Click to expand...

No they do - thats the point of their anti-trust exemptions. It allows them to negotiate as one company instead of 32 individual business owners.

I edited my post afterward - but that information as far as tickets sold to who and where will be part of the market study - so no, i don't buy for a second their books are "sealed" from the other owners.
 
iced said:
Edit: I think its completely hogwash now that I think about - the NFL would most lilely get that information when the cities undergo the the market studies
Click to expand...
They may require it if they view that as a real issue for relocating. But I don't buy that the NFL is taking that thought all that serious. Spanos can't realistically expect to lay claim to two different markets no matter how many tickets he claims are bought in a neighboring market.

I think it will come down to a few things and this is all just my hunches. First of all is what the NFL views as serving its future interests. Other than that, I would say that St Louis is ahead of any other current NFL city in their plans to build. If they keep it going like they have, I think the Rams stay. If the Rams stay, the Hollywood Park project reverts to the original plan with no stadium. The Carson project is possibly fatally flawed and may be something the NFL rejects outright rather than putting the #2 market in a facility on top of a dump, next to a huge compost pile a stones throw from refinery row. This in turn leaves Oakland and SD in play and gives them more time. End result - LA still has no team and the three current markets figure out a way to make it work.

I think it would suck for LA but like it or not, LA has been there - done that and would likely be the easiest to move on from.
 
RamFan503 said:
They may require it if they view that as a real issue for relocating. But I don't buy that the NFL is taking that thought all that serious. Spanos can't realistically expect to lay claim to two different markets no matter how many tickets he claims are bought in a neighboring market.
Click to expand...

It's not about laying claim to two different ones as much as it is laying claim to be priority to move there - i don't know how much weight that carries but i'm sure their lawyers have looked at the competition in markets in the anti-sherman act, which is what i think would be interesting from a litigation perspective (Which i doubt it'll even get that far with congress looming in the background)

I think it will come down to a few things and this is all just my hunches. First of all is what the NFL views as serving its future interests. Other than that, I would say that St Louis is ahead of any other current NFL city in their plans to build. If they keep it going like they have, I think the Rams stay. If the Rams stay, the Hollywood Park project reverts to the original plan with no stadium. The Carson project is possibly fatally flawed and may be something the NFL rejects outright rather than putting the #2 market in a facility on top of a dump, next to a huge compost pile a stones throw from refinery row. This in turn leaves Oakland and SD in play and gives them more time. End result - LA still has no team and the three current markets figure out a way to make it work.

I think it would suck for LA but like it or not, LA has been there - done that and would likely be the easiest to move on from.
Click to expand...

I've had this in the back of my mind for awhile now...and while I don't think this is the case, I would certainly never rule it out amongst these business owners. I could easily see all 3 of them using LA as leverage to help each team get the best stadium deals. Kroenke only has to look at Spanos and Davis's struggles with their cities and how long its taken them. For stan, buying land is moot since he's a real estate developer - totally win/win. Quid pro quo.

Anyway, total conjecture - but I'd never put it past these owners lol
 
iced said:
No they do - thats the point of their anti-trust exemptions. It allows them to negotiate as one company instead of 32 individual business owners.

I edited my post afterward - but that information as far as tickets sold to who and where will be part of the market study - so no, i don't buy for a second their books are "sealed" from the other owners.
Click to expand...
Actually it's not and you already know the courts have ruled them as independent businesses operating in a league.

During the CBA negotiations, the unions were asking for the courts to require the teams to open their books to show where the money was going. The teams refused and instead, the NFL provided the overview of revenue streams coming in (already public knowledge).

When Khan bought the Jags, there was talk of him pulling the team out of Everbank. He would save approximately $100 million dollars in penalties for doing so if he were to open his books. He and the NFL said they were not going to start having owner's books open to the public.

The NFL bylaws call for financial audits to determine debt ratios and ensure that the club's debt ceiling is within guidelines. Those audits themselves are turned into the treasurer and even that information is not allowed to be released to other members and committees of the NFL. Only owners with cross market situations (Stan is the only one currently) could be required to provide detailed info on their revenue streams and - more importantly - expenditures.

This is not to say that the NFL couldn't make that a requirement in their process for determining which team plays where but it is not part of the info that they are currently receiving. I'm sure that if an owner refused to provide this info, the NFL could use it as a basis for denying the LA market to them but I highly doubt they could require a team owner to do it - especially since the owners seem to have had the bylaws worded in such a way as to apparently prevent them from having to provide real details. It makes sense I suppose. I'm pretty sure that if the teams released their financials and all other info that backed it to the NFL, the NFL being a non-profit enjoying anti-trust exceptions would be required to open them to the public.
 
iced said:
Kroenke only has to look at Spanos and Davis's struggles with their cities and how long its taken them. For stan, buying land is moot since he's a real estate developer - totally win/win. Quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
Conjecture is right but how could Stan NOT look at these other team's struggles to get something done, combine that with what apparently was going to be quite the struggle with the city and CVC, and not do something to push the pace to his liking. Regardless, I don't think Stan was going to follow other owners' paths and wait and plead and beg. He was going to get something done on HIS schedule.

Anyway, I don't discount that the NFL is at least looking at who has what kind of fan base where. So in that, maybe the alleged :p 25% does come into play as well as an estimate on the popularity of the teams in a given market. I just don't buy it as a means for blocking a move by Stan - which was Spanos' intent when he threw that out there along with his claim to enough votes to block the move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back