NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

Well, the NFL's policies appear to be more guidelines than anything. Lots of wiggle room in there. And for every clause that would seem to restrict or at least limit the Rams, there's another allowing the league to consider national television contracts, travel costs and the geographic footprint of the league in approving a relocation.

But in any case, the Rams have tried for nearly two years to get the city to meet its clear stadium obligations under the lease. No threats to relocate, no unreasonable demands, no secret negotiations with California municipalities, nothing but asking St. Louis to live up to the letter of the agreement it had freely signed. We've heard a great deal on this thread about how Kroenke hasn't made any overt indications that he wants to leave Missouri. Only now, after the city decided to void the lease (a decision which was entirely its own) has he started to make anything that could be considered an overture elsewhere. I don't see how that wouldn't fit a reasonable definition of negotiating both diligently and in good faith.

[STL FANATIC]

I think you could slide it under reasonable if you were motivated to prefer a move (and in this case, I don't mean you, I mean if that's the league's perspective). But I don't think in actuality it is. Just because it was a real clause in the lease doesn't mean that it wasn't in pretty much everyone's opinion a stupid, stupid clause. I'm not sure an objective observer (thing is, nobody involved is objective) would really consider being stuck to two different parties stupid agreement from 20 years ago constitutes good faith negotiations.

But that's probably a lot of digression as I assume we'll see more negotiation anyways, and if we don't and Stan just wants to move, I assume the league will just let him whether he's truly adhering to those policies or not.

On a related note, here's a chat post from tonight by the Rams beat writer who certainly hasn't been optimistic (he used to guess 60/40 they stay, has revised to 55/45) about the Rams remaining in St. Louis:

You're right. It's a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let's say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You're talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need "just" another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn't seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it's already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they'll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?

http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_28/104693698

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. Even financially, unless you're looking so long-term that Kroenke is a very old man, it probably makes the most sense to remain in St. Louis.

[Gothamite]

But doesn't that argument also shoot a large hole in your "NFL owners will hold out for expansion" argument, if his relocation fee is $800 million?

That plan is interesting, but involves at least double the public contribution and a whole lot of additional taxation. What's the appetite for either of those in Missouri?

And FWIW, an independent and objective mediator did indeed decide that the lease was reasonable and that the Rams' work to that point was both appropriate and in good faith.

[rams80]

It's ok, Missouri doesn't value education anyway-just take the money from the schools.

[STL FANATIC]

It does. I was thinking about that as I re-read my post. It's sort of one or the other arguments I suppose. Either the expansion fee is so much greater than the relocation fee they wouldn't pass it up, or the relocation fee is so high Stan wouldn't do it. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure what re-location fee is accurate. But I do think either way presents obstacles to a Rams move, just different obstacles.

Honestly, I have little reason to believe St. Louis wouldn't pass these sorts of taxes unless an anti-pro sports sentiment really built up that I'm not currently seeing. Recently St. Louis voted a decent (3/16 of a cent — $780 million) tax to improve parks, which is primarily going to a nice but not great Arch ground renovations (full disclosure: I voted for it despite it's imperfection). And the state may end up passing a stupid one-cent/$8 billion transportation tax that will primarily build more dumb highways (that's what makes it stupid IMO). That one isn't a given, but I think momentum is in its favor.

Anyways, my point is there isn't a huge anti-taxation movement here. If the big wigs come out in favor of something and give the public some feel good reasons for why they need it, there's a pretty solid chance it will pass.

As for that last part, all the arbitrator did was make a ruling within the lease (which is all he was tasked with). He didn't make any judgements on whether that constitutes a full good faith negotiation regarding the Rams future in St. Louis.

[colortv]

Relocation fee of $800 million? That seems excessive...that's the cost of a completely new franchise.

Also, I'd imagine they could get a stadium done for less than $1 billion in St. Louis.

Lastly, I had a thought. San Diego and Oakland both seem to be in much tougher situations as far as getting a stadium in their current market, so wouldn't the NFL want to wait and see how those situations play out before letting St. Louis consider a move?

[rams80]

And the state may end up passing a stupid one-cent/$8 billion transportation tax that will primarily build more dumb highways (that's what makes it stupid IMO).

Begging your pardon, but Missouri desperately needs more interstate grade roads, albeit through upgrades mostly. They need to bite the bullet on U.S. 36 and get a north-south artery besides I/29/I-35 to I-49 and I-55 south of St. Louis.

[infrared41]

Guys, the Rams are most likely going back to Los Angeles. You should get used to the idea.

[STL FANATIC]

And the state may end up passing a stupid one-cent/$8 billion transportation tax that will primarily build more dumb highways (that's what makes it stupid IMO).

Begging your pardon, but Missouri desperately needs more interstate grade roads, albeit through upgrades mostly. They need to bite the bullet on U.S. 36 and get a north-south artery besides I/29/I-35 to I-49 and I-55 south of St. Louis.

It's not that I disagree with that, it's that I don't believe the metro regions of STL and KC need more highways (which keep being proposed), and I do strongly believe we need more funding for public mass transit, which Missouri barely funds at all (one of the lowest of any state). If this tax guaranteed $2 billion (that's arbitrary, but the point is some significant and acceptable number) towards specific mass transit projects, I'd be happy to also support building more roads. But I can't support the continued dependence on one over the other.

[rams80]

Guys, the Rams are most likely going back to Los Angeles. You should get used to the idea.

I've been pro-move for years, as a reminder.

[colortv]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-20140205,0,620868.story?page=1#axzz2sQgJZzmW

Good article on the LA situation, it's 2 pages.

[Cosmic]

Here's the Bills situation, since someone asked:

- The owner is 95 years old, his kids don't want the team, and he says he has a plan to keep the team in Buffalo after his death which he steadfastly refuses to detail.

- There have been rumblings about a local ownership group featuring Jim Kelly, but they have no major source of money that I can recall... they'd likely be digging in couch cushions.

- The Bills recently extended their lease until 2023 with a $400M relocation penalty, BUT there is a one-time buyout of $30M available in six years where they wouldn't have to pay the penalty. So, unless the owner lives to be 101, there will be someone new owning the team in six years who can pay $30M to skip town.

[TBGKon]

"Boo birds"? Seriously? Regardless of what the stadium was full of, being full of anything's a step above what the situation in St. Louis is like. You seem like you've been a fan of the Rams a while. If they move back to LA for the betterment of the team and you refuse to support them after that...well I guess they won't miss you.

Of course they won't miss me. But clearly you miss my point, so I'll spell it out. Because of their past experience with LA fans, I do not think the move would be for the better. I think it would be a big mistake.

Way to judge the current owners who were not even in the picture the last time the Rams were in LA. At least give the team a shot.

[Gothamite]

As for that last part, all the arbitrator did was make a ruling within the lease (which is all he was tasked with). He didn't make any judgements on whether that constitutes a full good faith negotiation regarding the Rams future in St. Louis.

If the arbitrators didn't think the Rams were negotiating in good faith, they wouldn't have held the city to the strictest interpretation of the lease. Similarly, if they felt the lease was unreasonable they could have shown preference to the city's softer interpretation. My understanding is that mediators have wide discretion to resolve these sorts of conflicts, but after hearing from both parties and reading the agreement the panel came down very heavily on the side of the Rams.

Also, I wouldn't put much stock in NFL regulations seeming to hinder a potential relocation; they bent those same regulations (if not breaking them outright) to allow Georgia to move to St. Louis in the first place.

[OldRamsFan]

"Boo birds"? Seriously? Regardless of what the stadium was full of, being full of anything's a step above what the situation in St. Louis is like. You seem like you've been a fan of the Rams a while. If they move back to LA for the betterment of the team and you refuse to support them after that...well I guess they won't miss you.

Of course they won't miss me. But clearly you miss my point, so I'll spell it out. Because of their past experience with LA fans, I do not think the move would be for the better. I think it would be a big mistake.

Way to judge the current owners who were not even in the picture the last time the Rams were in LA. At least give the team a shot.

How am I judging the owners? This entire time I've been talking about how bad the fans were.

And I won't give the team a shot. Like I said at beginning of my part in this discussion, I will never root for an LA team again. Ever.

[STL FANATIC]

If the arbitrators didn't think the Rams were negotiating in good faith, they wouldn't have held the city to the strictest interpretation of the lease. Similarly, if they felt the lease was unreasonable they could have shown preference to the city's softer interpretation. My understanding is that mediators have wide discretion to resolve these sorts of conflicts, but after hearing from both parties and reading the agreement the panel came down very heavily on the side of the Rams.

Maybe, but they were tasked with the process laid out in the lease. I don't think an all or nothing renovation paid for by the public is really good faith negotiation to keep the team in St. Louis when compared with other efforts in other markets. I understand what was in the lease, I just think a good faith effort goes beyond the lease. Again, this likely doesn't matter anyways.

Also, I wouldn't put much stock in NFL regulations seeming to hinder a potential relocation; they bent those same regulations (if not breaking them outright) to allow Georgia to move to St. Louis in the first place.

Ultimately, true. I'm digressing, but the NFL didn't exactly do Georgia favors (I'm not saying she deserved them). They upped the relocation fee severely and a lawsuit resulted. They weren't keen on letting the Rams move at all.

[rams80]

Also, I wouldn't put much stock in NFL regulations seeming to hinder a potential relocation; they bent those same regulations (if not breaking them outright) to allow Georgia to move to St. Louis in the first place.

Ultimately, true. I'm digressing, but the NFL didn't exactly do Georgia favors (I'm not saying she deserved them). They upped the relocation fee severely and a lawsuit resulted. They weren't keen on letting the Rams move at all.

She wanted to abandon the second largest market in the league for a smaller market that was already spoken for between the Chiefs, Bears, and Packer-loving contrarians.

In what universe would this move not be resisted?

[STL FANATIC]

Not many, and I wasn't implying anything to the contrary. Just (as I noted, digressing and) commenting on the word "bend," which to me implies some in cahoots softening of the rules, when in fact she forced her way out and the league fought her on it. They didn't bend them and play nice. (Which again, makes plenty of sense. Just painting the right picture.)

[colortv]

Lastly, I had a thought. San Diego and Oakland both seem to be in much tougher situations as far as getting a stadium in their current market, so wouldn't the NFL want to wait and see how those situations play out before letting St. Louis consider a move?

Any thoughts on this?

[STL FANATIC]

If you believe LA can and will get two teams, the Rams could move and still have an opening for those teams to gain leverage. Additionally, it could be argued that with a Rams move would come an actual, physical stadium that one of those teams could share with the Rams. That likely brings more leverage.

I don't believe the NFL will block anyone from moving for the sake of keeping leverage. I just don't believe any of these teams will be in a hurry to move in the first place. (The Chargers clearly aren't.)

Sam Farmer, who seems to be the most plugged-in reporter from LA, said today that he doesn't believe LA will have a team four years from now. (I'm not sure why four years was the chosen span.) He believes there remain too many obstacles.