NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

The "guidelines" thing is important, if any other owners share her opinion. A potent rebuttal to anyone who keeps referring to the bylaws as though they were carved on stone tablets.

I think we all know the owners operate as they wish. Everything pretty much comes with the caveat of "if they follow their own rules." They probably won't as they're a largely bad organization.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yeah, pretty sly.

She's not wrong, though; they are nice drawings, and they don't have much more than that in their plan.

That's not completely true. It's a little more than that. There are some numbers in this story...

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/creativity-and-hope-how-st-louis-will-fund-a-million/article_0b74d08b-1231-5f28-8d3d-6953dfa4f09d.html?mobile_touch=true

...BUT, the title of the article is "Creativity and hope: How St. Louis will fund a $985 million football stadium".

[Gothamite]

Hope is about all they have; they're proposing to build on land they don't own with money they don't have. And there's no reasonable expectation that they'll get the public financing they're desperately counting on.

The NFL thinks they're on a fine track, but suggests they'll have to have everything ready to go by the end of the year, preferably sooner

Actually, he was quite explicit that they better not wait until the end of the year:

I dont want to put any lines in the sand, he said. But what weve talked about is we really ought to be assembling this plan this calendar year. Which doesnt mean Dec. 31."

They've dragged their feet long enough. Time to put up.

[STL FANATIC]

There's more than reasonable expectation they'll get the public financing they're after. (Yes, I know what a few legislators have said, and I'd still stand by that.) But I wouldn't argue that there is also reasonable doubt. Probably 50/50.

I took his emphasis on Dec. 31st to mean they better not move slow and then try to rush it. There's a difference between progressing all year and still having a couple 'i's to dot and 't's to cross in December and making slow progress and then suddenly presenting their plan in December.

But obviously they'll want it ready as soon as they can, and if feet are dragged, Kroenke may already have his plans in place and owners on his side.

By the way, John Clayton thinks Dean Spanos has 9 owners to block a move. I give that a great big shrug. Even if it's true, plenty of time for Kroenke to change some minds.

http://www.101sports.com/2015/01/15/john-clayton-says-nfl-will-block-stan-kroenke-moving/

[STL FANATIC]

The NFL rebuffed Jerry Jones comments (and suggested Jones didn't mean them as he said them): http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/goodell-jones-have-a-talk/article_a7578c2f-c649-51b3-b87e-9f5c00291b27.html

Grubman also made it clear that the rules do matter and he firmly believes owners will follow them. But he left plenty of leeway for subjectivity in interpreting the rules in the event this reached a vote. The only thing he put a great deal confidence in was that Kroenke won't be going "rogue" and moving without a vote.

[STL FANATIC]

Art Rooney II echo's the league's stance: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150117-story.html

[Gothamite]

But even he isn't willing to say the bylaws are as ironclad as Peacock seems to want them to be.

"I don't agree with Jerry on that point," Rooney said. "The majority view is that there's a process the teams are going to have to go through, and I think everybody understands that in terms of the teams that may be interested, I expect that the process will be observed, and hopefully it will be an orderly process."

He thinks. He expects. Hopefully. Process. Note the carefully measures noncommittal statement. He won't say that Jones is conclusively wrong.

Peacock, meanwhile, insists:

"The NFL bylaws are very clear," Peacock said. "I believe in those bylaws, and I have confidence that we're an NFL city."

And yet Rooney doesn't sound so sure:

"I think next year is a time frame that I would hope that we at least go through a site-selection process and at that point are in a position where we have a site where we'd all feel comfortable putting a stadium," he said. "Then we'd be ready to go through a relocation process where we all understand that there's a first-class NFL stadium for a team to move to."

Rooney isn't quoted as saying anything about the bylaws. He's just describing the process Kroneke will have to go through, not the roadblocks the NFL or its bylaws will put in the Rams' way.

Again, it seems that St. Louis is blithely trusting the bylaws to prevent a relocation. Would explain their continued lack of urgency.

[STL FANATIC]

FWIW, I'm not disagreeing with you. (Well, obviously I do a bit, but not on most of these points.) I'm simply sharing the things I've been coming across. Not trying to put together an agenda, just putting it all here.

Also, I'm seeing where the NYT writer who had the Jerry Jones quotes is re-iterating that those quotes were from last week. In other words, BEFORE the game. The NFL's comments were that Jones said them without realizing what he was saying after a tough loss.

https://twitter.com/el_belson/status/556281729204232192

I don't think it really matters. I think Jones said what he meant. But the NFL's lying in order to walk back Jones' comments notable. Or maybe just par for the course.

[STL FANATIC]

Again, it seems that St. Louis is blithely trusting the bylaws to prevent a relocation. Would explain their continued lack of urgency.

I think St. Louis IS trusting the bylaws. But I don't think that means their head is in the sand either. All they can do is trust the bylaws. And if the Rams move anyways, then they're just s*** out of luck.

I know your next step is to reiterate that St. Louis has let it come to this by waiting so long.

St. Louis didn't wait long. They played out a process in the lease. Dave Peacock has been lining things up for a new stadium plan since shortly after the arbitration process finished. Stadium deals do not come together quickly. I'm not sure why St. Louis is being held to a higher standard in that regard then others.

I'm not saying the Rams can't or won't move. If they go they go. I'm just saying blaming it on the timing of the St. Louis stadium plan is hogwash.

[Cosmic]

Kinda sorta maybe almost halfway basically more or less ironclad.

[Gothamite]

St. Louis knew this was coming. They knew it was coming when they tried to low-ball the Rams, and they knew it when the arbitrator ruled against them.

Let's assume for a moment that you're right, and that St. Louis started working on this plan the same day. That means they let almost two whole years go by without bothering to figure out where they money is coming from.

That's not holding St. Louis to a "higher standard" - it's holding them to a pretty basic standard.

The best chance they had to convince the league was with their proposal. They needed to nail it, and instead they phoned it in. If Missouri loses the Rams, this will be he ultimate reason why, and that's why this is so infuriating. The last in a long-running stream of apathy from the original negotiatons to the fans to this half-baked proposal. But hey, neat drawings.

Edit: I misremembered, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams on February 1, 2013. Two years ago, not one, which makes their response all the worse.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Remember, they waited until after the election to go public. If that ultimately costs them because they couldn't get the ball rolling on the money, that's a shame, but also speaks to the nature of today's politics.

Focus all efforts on getting re-elected, then reveal the potentially unpopular things right after you get re-elected, then start focusing on getting re-elected as quickly as possible.

[Gothamite]

I was wrong.

It's been two years since the arbitrator rejected the CVC's proposal. Two years since they were put on notice. Not one. I misremembered.

Two years. And all they've been able to come up with is a couple of pretty drawings. No money, no land, no commitment, no real plan. I'm not surprised that Kroenke stopped returning phone calls, since they obviously aren't serious.

If the Rams move to LA, that'll be why. Because the city fathers didn't seem to care and the fans didn't hold them accountable.

[STL FANATIC]

How long did all the other stadium deals take to get funding approved? These things don't happen quickly.

If the Rams move to St. Louis it will be because a billionaire had an opening and saw an opportunity elsewhere, and the league preferred that opportunity. That's okay. A little slimy but okay. But St. Louis hasn't done anything wrong (since 1995 when they did everything wrong).

If St. Louis pulls this together in the next 6 months or so, that'll be having something done in about 2.5 years since the arbitration was ruled on. That's a normal to quick pass to work out a stadium deal.

When you consider that the owner won't even pick up the phone to discuss things, it'd be astounding, actually. How can the public officials get approval for money when they don't know how much it will take?

Nothing about this will be infuriating, though. I mean, I guess I'll always be infuriated at the league, but this is just par for their course. St. Louis is already bending over too much for the NFL. I'd hate to see how screwed we'd get (again) if we did it your way.

[Gothamite]

The onus here is entirely on the city. Kroenke gave his proposal, one that the arbitrator found reasonable. The city could have blocked a move by accepting the results.

Okay, they didn't want to. Fine. But then the city couldn't bother to do modest due diligence.

They didn't even investigate funding sources much less actually establish any. They claim that they can do it just by extending the bonds, with no additional public contribution. Fine. Get the city attorney to sign off on that. Get the AG to sign off. They didn't even bother to ask a lawyer if such a thing was permissible under the bonds (or they wouldn't answer even the most basic questions with "I don't know"). How hard is it to pick up the phone and call a lawyer?

If St. Louis gave Kroenke a proposal even halfway thought-through and he left, it'd be on him. But this rinky-dink nonsense places it squarely on the city/county/state/whomever. Out of some sort of Midwest/smaller city solidarity, I have been hoping that they could somehow find a way to keep them (though I've long thought it unlikely). The more I read now, though, the farther I drift from that.

They should just be honest and say "we don't think we should pay for a stadium, and you don't agree you should leave." That would at least be admirable.

[STL FANATIC]

Of course they've investigated the funds. You don't honestly believe they just presented this as a mere possibility without checking into that do you? Just because the funds haven't officially been freed up and made available doesn't mean they just brainstormed a possibility. They've talked to people who deal in this sort of thing and believe the funds are probable to be there, and they've said as much.

Again, how do you give someone a billion dollar proposal when they won't even sit down and tell you how much they need or what they're looking for?

Much as I'm not a huge fan of the overall proposal, I still think it's likely they have everything in place. I think it's unlikely that the Rams stay, but I believe there will be a stadium option ready (not physically ready, but fully prepared) if they don't.

Ultimately, though, I guess we'll know more about that in the months to come. The NFL has seemed to say you're on the right track, but now you need to show us more. Get this thing ready to go.

We'll see if St. Louis can do that. I suspect they will.

[Gothamite]

Actually, I do "honestly believe they just presented this as a mere possibility without checking into that". That's exactly what I believe, since they haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

If they had looked into it, they would have been able to offer concrete legal opinions. Not "I don't know."

Do they want to roll over the current notes, as has been reported? If so, can they legally do that without a second public vote? That doesn't depend on Kroenke. They also don't need prior approval from Kroneke to work with the state legislators and start the process of putting a funding bill together. At the very least, they should know who in the assembly is inclined to vote for it. Find one public official who thinks this isn't an awful idea in theory and put him/her out front to say so.

Can they get prominent businesses or groups wiling to join them onstage and commit to promotion, or buying suites, or anything?

Did they come to any agreement in principle to buy any of the land? Surely they could have signed some sort of letter of intent, with an expiration date, with at least one single solitary landowner. Even if they left the amount blank. Have they even spoken with any of the people whose land they intend to buy, or seize? If so, why can't they find even one to give a favorable public comment?

Did they approach fan groups to gather signatures, or write letters, or even appear at the press conference to hoot and holler and show public support?

And shoot, that's just off the top of my head. They had two years to come up with a workable plan, or at the very least to come up with a solid foundation to build upon. Instead they made some drawings and mumbled about the rest.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that the final funding plan will change based on the final project. But its not reasonable to come to the table without having done any of the very preliminary work. The amounts might change, but they should have at least a soft commitment from the sources before going public.

That's what I mean when I say they're not actually serious. Theu haven't done basic things that don't obligate anyone but at least test the waters.

I know it sucks. I feel for your position and don't want to be seen as dancing on the grave, especially since my two hometowns are still feeling the pain from moves a half-century ago. But c'mon. St. Louis isn't such a special market that they don't even have to try to keep their team. Because as a neutral person inclined to support a Midwestern city, and who loathes Los Angeles, that's exactly what I see.

[STL FANATIC]

So you wanted a good public showing. Fair enough. I don't think that actually accomplishes anything. They're working on all of this stuff behind the table. What they showed the public was just to show the public. It was dictated by an outcry from the public to see something and by Kroenke's push towards LA. But I don't care what the public presentation was lacking. It's all about what's behind the scenes.

And you needn't worry about me. I'm more concerned with whether the MLS comes as a result of this.

I think the stadium plan is bad for the city/region, I think the Rams bring very little in the way of positives to the region, and while I'll lapse on this about 300 times over the next 12 months, I'm ready to be broken from their spell.

My outlook here isn't based on a desire to see this plan succeed, I just think it's better and more ready than you're giving it credit for.

Basically, what they went public with was a beta. It's Apple Maps. A solid foundation for something that might become great, but it had too many flaws to be hyped as THE product. But the marketing miss doesn't prevent there product—or project as the case may be—from reaching its potential.

The unveiling should have been a press release with a couple of images and a note about expecting a full unveiling in 6 months. That was a miss. But I don't think it really matters. They'll get it done or they won't. My guess is they do, but the Rams move anyways.

[The_Admiral]

I think the stadium plan is bad for the city/region, I think the Rams bring very little in the way of positives to the region

I think this is true and I think most people know it's true, but the resistance is textbook "But without sports, we're not important!" flailing. I don't think anyone really believes that a big football field is going to magically revitalize a downtrodden area and do it without siphoning from the city's other two places where sports venues are supposed to revitalize downtrodden areas. St. Louis is gonna be what it is whether there's an NFL stadium or not, but if there's not one, maybe they can use the money on things that affect regular people's everyday lives.

Incidentally, no argument here that the Cardinals do a lot for the city/region; they draw from a huge footprint and do it 81+ (and screw that +) times.

[HedleyLamarr]

If St. Louis pulls this together in the next 6 months or so, that'll be having something done in about 2.5 years since the arbitration was ruled on. That's a normal to quick pass to work out a stadium deal.

What is a normal time frame between going from nothing to having something 'done' for a new stadium?

Seems like the Falcons and Braves were done in well under two and a half years. Especially the Braves......