Yeah, MO going to give up all that state income tax revenue to IL. THINK
^ agreed! Think of Eads Bridge as pedestrian only during games! It would be incredible.
Not sure what it looks like politically. Illinois, St. Clair, East St. Louis might be more willing to invest public money. With a cash payment to city, county, and RSA… would they be willing to accept a team in a different jurisdiction as payment?
Still very skeptical a team is possible.
Not sure what it looks like politically. Illinois, St. Clair, East St. Louis might be more willing to invest public money. With a cash payment to city, county, and RSA… would they be willing to accept a team in a different jurisdiction as payment?
Still very skeptical a team is possible.
- 2,055
I think this is what dredger was getting at is an interesting idea... If the city just wants cash and the rest of the parties want something else, then you add more stakeholders to the mix if you can... If the state and county want the team, then you cut a deal with the State/County to have the team put out west.
...so in gone corporate's scenario, you get your cut of the $1.34BB from the deal AND the State buys out the city for their cut with a funded infrastructure deal, the county buys out the city with Convention Center upgrades, and whoever the eventual owner is could also be in the mix with a cash payout too.
The same could be said for Illinois if Missouri isn't interested in working with the NFL... An eastSTL team would mean Illinois would have to dole out a ton of cash, fund metro on the MO side, or whatever would match that investment on their side.
Whatever the ending scenario, the total windfall for the city would need to be greater than what they would get solely on the lawsuit payout if the NFL walked, but ideally the city could come out even further on top if they negotiated with additional parties... kind of risky with our State government though.
...so in gone corporate's scenario, you get your cut of the $1.34BB from the deal AND the State buys out the city for their cut with a funded infrastructure deal, the county buys out the city with Convention Center upgrades, and whoever the eventual owner is could also be in the mix with a cash payout too.
The same could be said for Illinois if Missouri isn't interested in working with the NFL... An eastSTL team would mean Illinois would have to dole out a ton of cash, fund metro on the MO side, or whatever would match that investment on their side.
Whatever the ending scenario, the total windfall for the city would need to be greater than what they would get solely on the lawsuit payout if the NFL walked, but ideally the city could come out even further on top if they negotiated with additional parties... kind of risky with our State government though.
I think an expansion team as part of the settlement should be a non-starter from the city's point of view. If the NFL would be willing to guarantee an expansion team to St. Louis, it is because they think it would be profitable, and if they think it would be profitable they would work to eventually get one here later. If there is a big settlement/payday and the lawyers want to use their cut to buy a team, fine, but I think the city should view any attempt to swap out cash for a team as a briar patch play the NFL is trying to pull that will both decrease the amount of actual cash they have to pay as well as expand their brand/revenue streams, even if they forgo the usual expansion fee, etc.
No argument there, but I wasn’t really suggesting a full on copy of a typical suburban type setup with the vast amounts surface parking.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021Exactly. There’s plenty of completely empty sites in the region that would be better fits. Zero reason anyone should have to move out of their home for a new stadium.
Personally, I’d love a stadium in Illinois, right across the river. That won’t ever happen though.
sc4mayor wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021No argument there, but I wasn’t really suggesting a full on copy of a typical suburban type setup with the vast amounts surface parking.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021Exactly. There’s plenty of completely empty sites in the region that would be better fits. Zero reason anyone should have to move out of their home for a new stadium.
Personally, I’d love a stadium in Illinois, right across the river. That won’t ever happen though.
- Like Illinois would do anything for the state south of I-80.
- Illinois needs to figure out the Bears and if they're staying downtown or way out to Arlington Heights.
- 991
I somewhat agree, dweebe. Illinois would probably support a new NFL team on their side of the river, but I don't think they would shell out a few hundred million in public funding for it to be built. Nor should they. Why pay big bucks for something that the league might otherwise just give the city/county for free across the river? St. Clair County and some of the individual municipalities such as Belleville or O'Fallon would probably be very interested in providing sites and some infrastructure support for a stadium to be built upon, it would probably just be further out by or even past 255. I don't see any sites right across the river with beautiful downtown views that would make logical sense for a NFL stadium. Too much rail infrastructure in place and unless you want to clear out residences, not nearly enough space for parking.
- 2,929
Solid article from Daniel Wallach, a sharp sports attorney...
ConductDetrimental.com: New documents revealing cities’ role in NFL relocation guidelines could boost St. Louis trial hopes
TL/DR: The NFL's relocation guidelines were in part written with the cooperation of the United States Conference of Mayors. They co-wrote a Statement of Principles defining their relationship. Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue included this Statement of Principles into the NFL's Relocation Guidelines and stated that the Principles were unequivocally incorporated into the Guidelines. This was stated in 1999 before a US Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legal effect of this incorporation makes the Statement of Principles fully a part of the Relocation Guidelines as a matter of contract law. Therefore, the NFL's disregarding of the Relocation Guidelines is a violation of contract for which STL is fully a third party beneficiary, which has already been put forth and recognized by the Court but is now further emphasized and made more explicit.
ConductDetrimental.com: New documents revealing cities’ role in NFL relocation guidelines could boost St. Louis trial hopes
TL/DR: The NFL's relocation guidelines were in part written with the cooperation of the United States Conference of Mayors. They co-wrote a Statement of Principles defining their relationship. Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue included this Statement of Principles into the NFL's Relocation Guidelines and stated that the Principles were unequivocally incorporated into the Guidelines. This was stated in 1999 before a US Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legal effect of this incorporation makes the Statement of Principles fully a part of the Relocation Guidelines as a matter of contract law. Therefore, the NFL's disregarding of the Relocation Guidelines is a violation of contract for which STL is fully a third party beneficiary, which has already been put forth and recognized by the Court but is now further emphasized and made more explicit.
- 991
To extrapolate on this point slightly... this is what helped the NFL retain their antitrust exemption after the fallout of the 1995 Browns relocation to Baltimore, along with reactivating the Browns franchise in 1999. So the NFL fully intended for the Statement of Principles to be codified and hold weight in their future decisions. For them to try and say that no, it wasn't a permanent deal, and that the League reserved the right to toss the SoP to the side at any point they deemed fit, is basically saying they lied to congress about their intentions back in 1999.
- 2,929
Spot on. This is the one thing that truly amazes me here, how the NFL has so put at risk their antitrust status. If they lose that, then they're in far more trouble than having to pay STL or whoever else a boatload of money. Did they really just hear StanK say that the case probably won't get out of arbitration & never see the light of day (or oversight), and just agree to that? Is their hubris really that overpowering? It's one thing to bend a law and end up before a judge; it's something else entirely if they get called up before a Congressional committee again.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021To extrapolate on this point slightly... this is what helped the NFL retain their antitrust exemption after the fallout of the 1995 Browns relocation to Baltimore, along with reactivating the Browns franchise in 1999. So the NFL fully intended for the Statement of Principles to be codified and hold weight in their future decisions. For them to try and say that no, it wasn't a permanent deal, and that the League reserved the right to toss the SoP to the side at any point they deemed fit, is basically saying they lied to congress about their intentions back in 1999.
- 2,419
What are the chances that the NFL's antitrust status actually comes under fire?
If St. Louis isn't going to get an expansion franchise, I wouldn't mind seeing the city send a torpedo or two into the league's side (even if I do continue to watch and find entertainment in the league).
I'm also curious to see what happens with the Gruden fiasco, as he is said to be plotting his own revenge for what happened. Could those 600,000 emails the NFL is covering up be released through a lawsuit?
The NFL seems to have a number of fronts they need to be worried about.
If St. Louis isn't going to get an expansion franchise, I wouldn't mind seeing the city send a torpedo or two into the league's side (even if I do continue to watch and find entertainment in the league).
I'm also curious to see what happens with the Gruden fiasco, as he is said to be plotting his own revenge for what happened. Could those 600,000 emails the NFL is covering up be released through a lawsuit?
The NFL seems to have a number of fronts they need to be worried about.
It doesn't take much to get the attention of Congress regarding the NFL's anti trust exemption.gone corporate wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021Spot on. This is the one thing that truly amazes me here, how the NFL has so put at risk their antitrust status. If they lose that, then they're in far more trouble than having to pay STL or whoever else a boatload of money. Did they really just hear StanK say that the case probably won't get out of arbitration & never see the light of day (or oversight), and just agree to that? Is their hubris really that overpowering? It's one thing to bend a law and end up before a judge; it's something else entirely if they get called up before a Congressional committee again.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021To extrapolate on this point slightly... this is what helped the NFL retain their antitrust exemption after the fallout of the 1995 Browns relocation to Baltimore, along with reactivating the Browns franchise in 1999. So the NFL fully intended for the Statement of Principles to be codified and hold weight in their future decisions. For them to try and say that no, it wasn't a permanent deal, and that the League reserved the right to toss the SoP to the side at any point they deemed fit, is basically saying they lied to congress about their intentions back in 1999.
- Remember when NFL games not sold out would be blacked out on TV in the home market? That changed because of Congress and threatening the anti-trust exemption.
- Remember when the NFL Network came online and they talked about putting some games exclusively on there? That changed for the same reason. (The two teams playing have to put it over-the-air broadcast in their market.)
Oakland hasn't given up on their antitrust suit against the NFL:KansasCitian wrote: ↑Nov 03, 2021What are the chances that the NFL's antitrust status actually comes under fire?
If St. Louis isn't going to get an expansion franchise, I wouldn't mind seeing the city send a torpedo or two into the league's side (even if I do continue to watch and find entertainment in the league).
I'm also curious to see what happens with the Gruden fiasco, as he is said to be plotting his own revenge for what happened. Could those 600,000 emails the NFL is covering up be released through a lawsuit?
The NFL seems to have a number of fronts they need to be worried about.
https://www.bafirm.com/2021/06/9th-circ ... rust-suit/
Martin Kilcoyne interview of Jeff Rainford. He doesn't think the NFL will award STL an expansion team but he details how it might work if they did:
- 6,119
Interesting speculation and some insightful analysis of why things might or might not happen. It's good to hear some numbers.
^ All speculation and only 1 guy that I know of (Florio) is pushing the expansion team but it's fun to discuss. While we are speculating...
If it were to come where the NFL offered an expansion team to settle, then why not ask for the moon? Require the new owner(s) rebuild the current dome with a state-of-the-art 1.5b stadium attached to the expanded convention center and require that the new owner(s) maintain top tier status every 10-20 years in a 60 year lease.
Win for the city and for sports fans.
If it were to come where the NFL offered an expansion team to settle, then why not ask for the moon? Require the new owner(s) rebuild the current dome with a state-of-the-art 1.5b stadium attached to the expanded convention center and require that the new owner(s) maintain top tier status every 10-20 years in a 60 year lease.
Win for the city and for sports fans.
I can't imagine it will be possible to maintain a 50+ year old stadium as top-tier no matter what you do to keep it in shape.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Nov 08, 2021^ All speculation and only 1 guy that I know of (Florio) is pushing the expansion team but it's fun to discuss. While we are speculating...
If it were to come where the NFL offered an expansion team to settle, then why not ask for the moon? Require the new owner(s) rebuild the current dome with a state-of-the-art 1.5b stadium attached to the expanded convention center and require that the new owner(s) maintain top tier status every 10-20 years in a 60 year lease.
Win for the city and for sports fans.
- 2,929
Wow.....
1. Very low-ball figure, especially when the League itself is reportedly anticipating a payout of $8-12BB (believe source for that range is Benjamin Allbright).
2. He already owes considerably more than that covering the legal fees for himself and the rest of the League.
3. From the ESPN article from 2 weeks ago, Seth Wickersham's report from inside the owners' meeting:
Whatever way it is, I can't imagine the other owners are smiling right now.
1. Very low-ball figure, especially when the League itself is reportedly anticipating a payout of $8-12BB (believe source for that range is Benjamin Allbright).
2. He already owes considerably more than that covering the legal fees for himself and the rest of the League.
3. From the ESPN article from 2 weeks ago, Seth Wickersham's report from inside the owners' meeting:
If these 2 reports are accurate, then Jerry Jones didn't tell the truth to the other owners. Either Jerry's lying on StanK's behalf, or StanK lied to Jerry. Meanwhile, Pash - the League's in house counsel - is telling the owners that some of them don't have $100MM in personal net worth; as they own franchises, this is also not true.Jones and Pash had a brief back-and-forth, then Jones asked Pash whether Kroenke had tried to settle the lawsuit.
Pash replied that he had, sources told ESPN. Jones indicated that Kroenke's settlement figure was billions of dollars. Pash refused to confirm the figure -- a source with direct knowledge of the situation told ESPN it was less than a billion -- but told those in the meeting that it was more than the net worth of some in the room.
Whatever way it is, I can't imagine the other owners are smiling right now.
- 991
We shouldn't be surprised by this, it's negotiation 101. Kroenke's team wanted to get a lowball offer out there in hopes that it would shift the eventual settlement number down. Kroenke's team hoped to get STL to counter with a dollar amount so that they could then negotiate somewhere in the middle. I guarantee that even if you see stories that quote team STL lawyers or spokespeople as calling the $100M offer "insulting", both sides realize that this is going to be a long dance. STL's counter was to simply say no and simply proceed with the court case. I would bet that Kroenke's next offer (if it hasn't been submitted already) will be $250M, and then we'll see it slowly creep up (well, we may not know in real time but you get my point).
- 2,929
Well, most media still isn't covering this story, but FWIW there is some new pickup...
Golf Digest: You won’t believe this, but the NFL reportedly wants a team in St. Louis
I'll give the golfers credit, they sure didn't pull any punches.
Golf Digest: You won’t believe this, but the NFL reportedly wants a team in St. Louis
I'll give the golfers credit, they sure didn't pull any punches.
In 2015, after two decades under the arch, the St. Louis Rams packed their bags and headed west. Stan Kroenke, one of the worst owners not only in America, but in England too, wanted a bigger market. So did the NFL. St. Louis fought hard to keep their adopted team, but ultimately the gravitational pull of La La Land was too strong. The Rams moved to LA, hired a baby-faced coach, built a shiny new stadium, and, magically, were good again. Go figure.
Remember the scene from "Bad Santa" where Bernie Mac squeezes them for half of the loot? That's the way St. Louis needs to roll.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2021We shouldn't be surprised by this, it's negotiation 101. Kroenke's team wanted to get a lowball offer out there in hopes that it would shift the eventual settlement number down. Kroenke's team hoped to get STL to counter with a dollar amount so that they could then negotiate somewhere in the middle. I guarantee that even if you see stories that quote team STL lawyers or spokespeople as calling the $100M offer "insulting", both sides realize that this is going to be a long dance. STL's counter was to simply say no and simply proceed with the court case. I would bet that Kroenke's next offer (if it hasn't been submitted already) will be $250M, and then we'll see it slowly creep up (well, we may not know in real time but you get my point).
Scene NSFW
- 991
And that's how they're probably going to roll. Expect more stories about Kroenke offering higher settlement amounts to roll out over the coming months. They know that team STL is gunning for the multi-billion dollar range, but they also know the casual fan and individual will see hundreds of millions and think St. Louis is stupid for not immediately accepting. It's just part of the "dance" to control the narrative.