urbanSTL

According to Bernie, his NFL sources say that the NFL was caught off guard yesterday and they were not happy by Stan's stunt.

Amy Trask- CEO of the Raiders from 97 to 2013 was on CBS Sports 920 and if anyone knows anything about what it takes to move a team she does (she was also with the Raiders when they moved from LA to Oakland) she said it will be very hard to Stan to move and the best thing St.Louis can do is to skip Stan and go directly to the league with the stadium (which has been Peacocks plan along)

Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community…”

And this: “No club has an ‘entitlement’ to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so.”

Kroenke hasn’t come close to fulfilling those obligations. And having a chance to make more money in another market doesn’t justify moving a franchise.

^So this may show us that Stan is going rogue on the NFL. That could mean litigation and as KD says, it could get ugly for a while. Goodell will not be happy, but it is really about whether or not he pissed off 9 owners enough to block it. Stan probably does not care about anything or anybody, when you are talking about the kind of "jack" he can make in LA if he moves.

If this was the 90's Stan would win a suit easily but since the fiasco of the 90s with Al Davis and all the teams moving, the NFL (which in reality is the 32 owners) have agreed to legal documents on how relocation process works, so im not sure stan would have much of a suit if 9 owners say no...he agreed to those rules.

Based on reports from a lot of folks, Stan isnt exactly liked that much by other owners and in the next 10 years a lot of teams will need new stadiums so if stan is allowed to leave with a new stadium on the table here that would really set the league on a dangerous course where teams are just moving to chase more $.

Kroenke has lost his mind.


Insider Buzz: Kroenke Says Rams Are Moving to LA With or Without NFL's Approval
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2320 ... s-approval

Is there anything legally blocking Kroenke from moving the Rams? Yes, he is going against league policy, but the owners can change that policy tomorrow if they really wanted.

He's banking on the fact that the owners will cave. The league and owners may complain, but the reality is no one is making an attempt to move to LA. He's building a stadium with no cost to anyone else, and an LA team will put money in the owners' pockets. Yeah, I'm sure some of the owners won't like his method, but what is the alternative?

pat wrote:Is there anything legally blocking Kroenke from moving the Rams? Yes, he is going against league policy, but the owners can change that policy tomorrow if they really wanted.

He's banking on the fact that the owners will cave. The league and owners may complain, but the reality is no one is making an attempt to move to LA. He's building a stadium with no cost to anyone else, and an LA team will put money in the owners' pockets. Yeah, I'm sure some of the owners won't like his method, but what is the alternative?

Amy Trask says make the Chargers as Southern Cali's team and move them to LA then slowly later on bring in the Raiders.... Issue that the NFL has is 2 Cali teams need new stadiums and their cities (San Diego and Oakland) aren't budging at all...Chargers have been trying for 16 years now to get a new stadium in SD and Oakland wont even consider any tax payer help...so if the NFL lets a team from out of state move into southern Cali, all while having a viable stadium plan on the table at its home city a lot of nfl owners wont be happy.

and LA has been making owners a lot of money without a team...think of billions of dollars in the last 15 years the owners have gotten in stadium subsidizes because of the LA threat.....there are 10 more teams that will need new stadiums in the next 15 years...

I would think owners would be hesitant to give up their leverage city (LA) and also against Kroenke proceeding without public monies. That sets a precedent.

How many times have we seen extravagant renderings and then nothing comes of it? (BallPark Village, Bottle District, SLU/Pevely) Is this just a poker play?

^Unfortunately, that seems to be a St. Louis phenomenon more so than LA. I see your point though. It happens everywhere.
At this stage, it is a rendering. When/if the dirt starts moving, it will become real.

^I'd be skeptical too, after 20 years of being used and not having NFL football. However, again, why this is different; Stan owns a team, owns land, has an out in his lease, is currently in a city that will have a tough time financing a new venue ( I think), owner has tons of LA connections, has not made commitment to current city, has put crap product on the field for more than a decade, dwindling fanbase, owners team moved from location rumored to be moving to, has long history in LA market, is proposing stadium project with no public funding, will breeze through Inglewood vote, NFL owners known to go around their own rules in the past, owner has major ties to LA, home there, past involvement on LA stadium committee, connections to LA big wigs... etc...etc... etc... Expect Tim Leiweke, native STL'er, former AEG NFL to LA executive, to join Stan's team, if this Rams to LA thing gets real legs. He is leaving his job as president and CEO of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment 2015. Coincidence!?

This time it is different! Those are the main reasons. I'm sure there are more!

Great piece by Bernie. Really breaks it down and asks the important questions. Obviously, a lot of clarity has come to the situation in the last 48 hours, but still, great article.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 277ae.html

What's the O/U on % of Bears fans next year at the Rams/Bears game? 90?

Woah. (Rubs eyes) Gone corporate is back!

Oh he is really going to piss you off soon then

Maggie Crane (slays communication director) was on a LA sports radio station today. Said Stan never met with the Nixon or Slay, never even responded with a no. She also said that nobody from the Rams org has met with the city at all. She also said the city is open to the raiders and chargers.....

^ I'll take the Raiders, but if Mark Davis comes with them, are we going to have a fight between Davis and St. Louis football fans over a name change? But I'd take the Raiders, I wanna keep the Rams, but I want a football team in St. Louis above all else with an owner that cares about St. Louis. I'm absolutely sick of this sh*t, Kroenke can go to hell, leverage or not, he can go straight to hell.

Somebody sell me on the "St. Louis Stallions" I can't get past the purple and yellow.

@Gone_Corporate - great song, thanks for sharing it

There won't be a team here ever again if the Rams leave

Don't know enough about NFL bylaws let alone NFL's antitrust exemption but for the sake of entertainment on this forum. Could MO State Attorney General brings suit against NFL that Stan K is not legitimate owner of Rams since he hasn't divested his Denver sports holdings? Heck, just the idea of State Attorney challenging NFL's antitrust exemption would make things pretty interesting.

In other words, Present a new stadium proposal and a lawsuit at same time. Essentially telling NFL that Stan is free to leave town but not the RAMS. I really think their is some legal merit to the thought

As far as Stan's/Stonebridge stadium plan it makes a lot of sense for them to get two teams into that stadium if it is built and the reality of course is that neither Oakland and or San Diego have anything that is close to what just came together in Inglewood. Oakland has a fantasy plan in Colesium City with no apparent dollars behind it and haven't read and seen anything that suggests that San Diego even has a plan. The other reality, my impression is that Chargers ownership would rather stay in Southern Cal at end of day and Raiders wouldn't mind going to Texas. So I think it really comes down to St. Louis/Gov Nixon challenging NFL or calling out Stan's bluff If it is one with something respectable in the very near future or both.

On another side note. US Olympic committee is suppose to announce which US city that will be nominated for 2024 bid on Thursday I believe. US Olympic committee trying to decide on San Fran, LA, Boston and Washington DC. Inglewood site announcement plays into a few things. I think LA might have just trump San Fran, Boston and DC. 80,000 seats is a big stadium even by NFL standards

dbInSouthCity wrote:There won't be a team here ever again if the Rams leave

Should we just go ahead and build a 70k MLS stadium then? I mean just to stay ahead of the curve? Or maybe Hollywood Park is actually for the LA Gunners.

dbInSouthCity wrote:There won't be a team here ever again if the Rams leave

I don't care if this is true or not, but it isn't. Necessarily. If the Rams leave a reasonable deal on the table and just bolt, there's a solid (not saying good, just solid) chance that another team finds their way here.

It would have to be the type of deal that the NFL's current stance suggests the Rams aren't allowed to leave. But we know that NFL rules are a sham and we know that Kroenke doesn't care about them, so they could leave anyways. Under those circumstances, another team might be interested in taking the deal.

But, I'm not sure I want to deal with that. I've been ready to quit football for years. I don't need anything else keeping me in football purgatory. If the Rams go, I'd like football to just go ahead and go with them.

^I'm almost at that point too, my thing is if there's going to be a hiatus between NFL in St. Louis, don't bother. I also don't want anything to do with a lame duck season. If the Rams are going to leave and the Raiders want to relocate to St. Louis do it before the 2015 season.

Here is why there won't be a NFL team here. The plan for a new stadium here depends on NFL G4 fund $, up to $250m. That fund is only for teams staying and building in their current market. To get a new current team to StL if the Rams leave, the stadium will have to be 100% or close to it publicly funded as the owner of the team moving will have a relocation fee to pay. So one more time, it's the Rams or nothing ever