NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[HedleyLamarr]

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

As long as there's tickets to sell for Rams games in St. Louis, you're not going to hear anything from the NFL about allowing/supporting a move to Los Angeles.

[rams80]

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

[colortv]

C'mon, man. Links are boring. What do you think about the articles?

Links are pretty self explanatory, not much for me to say other than I think plenty of native southern californians would drop out of town team allegiances in a heartbeat if there were a home team.

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

Well, we don't know if he'd win in court.

The whole Donald Sterling debacle taught us that the leagues periodically update ownership paperwork to include new terms. That's partially how the NBA was able to remedy the situation so quickly.

We've also heard Goodell say that the NFL has strengthened it's relocation terms since the days of Al Davis.

[Mac the Knife]

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

No, actually, I doubt Kroenke would win a court fight. Al Davis won his based on how the NFL handled relocations at the time of that case; the league has imposed every one of the recommendations the court put forth at the end of that case as a means of avoiding losing similar cases in the future. They didn't do it until the 2000's, but they did it.

[IceCap]

C'mon, man. Links are boring. What do you think about the articles?

Links are pretty self explanatory, not much for me to say other than I think plenty of native southern californians would drop out of town team allegiances in a heartbeat if there were a home team.

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

Well, we don't know if he'd win in court.

The whole Donald Sterling debacle taught us that the leagues periodically update ownership paperwork to include new terms. That's partially how the NBA was able to remedy the situation so quickly.

We've also heard Goodell say that the NFL has strengthened it's relocation terms since the days of Al Davis.

None of the NFL's bylaws are legally binding. The Deflategate trial should have told you that. No judge in the US is going to tell Stan Kroenke he can't move his own business to his own property with his own money.

No, actually, I doubt Kroenke would win a court fight. Al Davis won his based on how the NFL handled relocations at the time of that case; the league has imposed every one of the recommendations the court put forth at the end of that case as a means of avoiding losing similar cases in the future. They didn't do it until the 2000's, but they did it.

Again, why would a judge feel beholden to the NFL's bylaws? Bylaws which NFL owners and insiders themselves have described as non-binding?

[rams80]

Especially when the Roberts Court (if it got that far) basically has "err on being pro-business" as its default.

[colortv]

C'mon, man. Links are boring. What do you think about the articles?

Links are pretty self explanatory, not much for me to say other than I think plenty of native southern californians would drop out of town team allegiances in a heartbeat if there were a home team.

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

Well, we don't know if he'd win in court.

The whole Donald Sterling debacle taught us that the leagues periodically update ownership paperwork to include new terms. That's partially how the NBA was able to remedy the situation so quickly.

We've also heard Goodell say that the NFL has strengthened it's relocation terms since the days of Al Davis.

None of the NFL's bylaws are legally binding. The Deflategate trial should have told you that. No judge in the US is going to tell Stan Kroenke he can't move his own business to his own property with his own money.

No, actually, I doubt Kroenke would win a court fight. Al Davis won his based on how the NFL handled relocations at the time of that case; the league has imposed every one of the recommendations the court put forth at the end of that case as a means of avoiding losing similar cases in the future. They didn't do it until the 2000's, but they did it.

Again, why would a judge feel beholden to the NFL's bylaws? Bylaws which NFL owners and insiders themselves have described as non-binding?

Well hold on:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/

Now I can't say for sure one way or the other who would win but it certainly seems up for debate.

[STL FANATIC]

There may be a difference between bylaws and an ownership agreement.

Bylaws govern the way the league sets forth to operate, but ultimately can be overridden by the owners. When the NFL acknowledges that the relocation bylaws aren't binding, they're not saying owners can go rogue, they're saying a vote of the owners ultimately decides things. As in, maybe Krorenke doesn't qualify for relocation under the bylaws, but the owners can approve him to move anyways.

Ownership agreements are likely different. Those are legal contracts. And of course legal contracts can be upheld in court.

I don't know what the contents of the ownership agreement is, but we do know the NFL believes they can enforce whatever is in them and prevent an owner from going rogue.

[colortv]

Here's another link:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-la-memo-20150209-story.html

[Cosmic]

C'mon, man. Links are boring. What do you think about the articles?

Links are pretty self explanatory, not much for me to say other than I think plenty of native southern californians would drop out of town team allegiances in a heartbeat if there were a home team.

Why are we all so sure the Rams are a shoe-in to move?

From everything we've heard, strong voices on the LA committee favor keeping the Rams in St. Louis if a viable financing plan is found, reasons being not wanting to abandon home markets.

Also we've heard plenty how the Raiders and Chargers have enough votes to block a move(9 I believe, and Kroenke needs 23 votes in favor to actually move. Those numbers don't precisely match up because teams can abstain)

We also hear how there are owners who believe that a single stadium solution for two California teams that desperately need new stadiums is the better plan.

I don't think it's anywhere near settled that the Rams have that much momentum for a move.

If the NFL tried to block a move, Kroenke could still move (since he has the financing for the stadium) and take the league to court. And he'd win. Which is what the league knows too. That's why the brokered move with the Chargers/Raiders sharing the Inglewood Stadium is seen as the likely outcome.

Well, we don't know if he'd win in court.

The whole Donald Sterling debacle taught us that the leagues periodically update ownership paperwork to include new terms. That's partially how the NBA was able to remedy the situation so quickly.

We've also heard Goodell say that the NFL has strengthened it's relocation terms since the days of Al Davis.

None of the NFL's bylaws are legally binding. The Deflategate trial should have told you that. No judge in the US is going to tell Stan Kroenke he can't move his own business to his own property with his own money.

No, actually, I doubt Kroenke would win a court fight. Al Davis won his based on how the NFL handled relocations at the time of that case; the league has imposed every one of the recommendations the court put forth at the end of that case as a means of avoiding losing similar cases in the future. They didn't do it until the 2000's, but they did it.

Again, why would a judge feel beholden to the NFL's bylaws? Bylaws which NFL owners and insiders themselves have described as non-binding?

Well hold on:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/

Now I can't say for sure one way or the other who would win but it certainly seems up for debate.

The crux:

"The “majority view” of the league’s owners, however, would yield to the conclusion of a federal judge applying fairly basic principles of antitrust law.

Unless the antitrust laws have fundamentally changed since the last time the NFL tried to legally stop a team from moving to Los Angeles, that comfort could be misplaced. The argument would be fairly straightforward; the NFL consists of 32 independent businesses that can’t work together to place restrictions on the ability of any one of those independent businesses to take care of its own business, such as the selection of the place where the business will do business."

[Gothamite]

And antitrust laws supersede ownership agreements; parties are not bound by an illegal contract, no matter how willingly signed.

MLB has a broad antitrust exemption and could definitely prevent a club from moving; the NFL's is limited around pooling broadcast revenue and therefore they probably cannot.

We keep talking about how the NFL changed its contracts in the wake of the Davis suit, but there's been another development that may make those changes moot. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL was an association of 32 independently competing teams, not a single entity as the league had claimed. That opens the door for Kroenke or another owner to overrule the wishes of the league where his own business is concerned. I would be very surprised if the NFL let any of these issues into a courtroom.

[STL FANATIC]

Would that actually be an illegal contract though? Independent parties sign contracts with each other all the time in which they relinquish rights that would otherwise be guaranteed to them by law. That's not remotely uncommon and those contracts are generally enforceable.

The other factor to this is non-contractual leverage. Maybe they are all independent businesses, but they league distributes a great deal of wealth and advantages to them. In the reports about the league feeling comfortable about being able to stop a rogue owner, part of it is the idea that they'll withhold benefits that a team would other wise get. And I don't see any reason why that would be illegal.

So Kroenke could go to LA, but the league doesn't have to give him a Super Bowl. They don't have to build the NFL network experience there. I assume there are other financial penalties that they can enact. The league holds a lot of leverage in other ways too.

I'm with you, though. I don't think this gets to the courtroom. I don't think anyone wants that, and that's largely what we've seen reported. We haven't only seen league sources say they think they can enforce the bylaws, we've seen plenty of reports that Kroenke has no intention of going rogue and that the owners are likely to work this out amongst themselves.

[rams80]

The Super Bowl is an empty threat, though, because it's not like the proposed St. Louis stadium would ever host that game. (It would make the complaints about the Jacksonville Super Bowl seem like minor grumbling.)

And if you threaten to withhold revenue sharing, well the Rams don't exactly need to contribute to revenue sharing at that point either....

The league's leverage isn't as great as you would think.

[TheOldRoman]

I think a new St. Louis stadium would get a Super Bowl. That's been a recent marketing ploy to get cities to build new stadiums. But just like Jacksonville, Detroit, and eventually Minneapolis, it would get one and only one.

But I don't think it would be am empty threat since there's a great expectation that LA will go into the regular Super Bowl rotation after a new stadium is built. Kroenke might go to LA expecting to get the SB every three years, but the NFL could tell him to pound sand. I speculated a few months back that if Kroenke went rogue, the NFL might back a Chargers plan to build their LA stadium. Then the NFL could have their LA SB in the Chargers' stadium every third year, build a compound around it and the Rams would see none of it.

I don't imagine the NFL could force Kroenke to stay in STL, but I think for sure they could cut off benefits which he gets now or could be expected to get in LA otherwise.

[The_Admiral]

If Kroenke pulls the trigger and moves, I don't think the NFL can hold him up as having gone rogue for very long. This isn't, say, Jim Irsay pulling up stakes and moving to Indianapolis in the middle of the night. He owns the land in Inglewood. His lease is up in St. Louis. He's been in talks with the league about moving to Los Angeles. The league wants to be in L.A., and Stan has the means to make it happen. Sure, some owners can pout that they didn't get to help their old buddy Dean Spanos instead, but eventually the league would have to be pragmatic about the situation and make the most of it for everyone. They'd be stupid to withhold a Los Angeles Super Bowl from themselves because Kroenke took initiative before Spanos could get all his public-subsidy ducks in a row.

[JayMac]

Wrong thread

[The_Admiral]

Because the NFL won't let the Blackhawks move to Los Angeles.

EDIT: You can't edit out your gaffe when someone catches you on it, you dildo! PUT IT BACK

[JayMac]

Because the NFL won't let the Blackhawks move to Los Angeles.

Roger may try!

[TheOldRoman]

I am light years away from this whole Kane thing so please humor me...why hasn't the Blackhawks organization done anything?

The Blackhawks organization is waiting to see if Kane tries to move the Rams to LA; might consider a move to STL if the market is open.

EDIT: Damn. Beaten to it.

[JayMac]

I am light years away from this whole Kane thing so please humor me...why hasn't the Blackhawks organization done anything?

The Blackhawks organization is waiting to see if Kane tries to move the Rams to LA; might consider a move to STL if the market is open.

EDIT: Damn. Beaten to it.

You guys are sharp