NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

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 proposed stadium is a bit on the small side (in terms of seats) and even more damning, doesn't have a roof. New York "worked" because it was New York and the league got lucky with the weather. St. Louis ain't New York and only a fool banks on getting lucky with the weather.

[TheOldRoman]

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.

The thing I don't understand is - is an LA Super Bowl even really more of a cash cow for the NFL than any other one? No matter where they go they're getting a boatload of concessions and free :censored:. I don't think they'd charge more for the tickets specifically because of the location, and I don't think more people would watch the game because it was played in LA. I think the LA Super Bowl, like having one in New York, is more of a status symbol for the league.

[TheOldRoman]

The proposed stadium is a bit on the small side (in terms of seats) and even more damning, doesn't have a roof. New York "worked" because it was New York and the league got lucky with the weather. St. Louis ain't New York and only a fool banks on getting lucky with the weather.

I don't know STL weather in early February, but I imagined it would be a little better than Chicago, probably in-line with New York. They did really luck out with the NY game, seeing as the city got destroyed with a blizzard a few days later. Either way, Goddell said it was a positive experience and that the league would like more northern outdoor games, leading to dumbass Rahm Emmanuel thinking Solider Field should host one.

But I hadn't thought of the capacity. You're correct that it would likely be a deal breaker for the league.

[Gothamite]

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.

I'll gladly ask for the help from actual attorneys on this one.

Do want to add one thing to the bolded portion - we've seen league sources say they think they can enforce the bylaws, but we've also heard from people in the know that bylaws are considered little more than guidelines to be discarded at will. I wouldn't hang my hat on the NFL bylaws.

[STL FANATIC]

I agree Goth, I don't think they're beholden to the bylaws unless they so choose to be, and a rogue owner may be able to legally go against those. (I'm less sure they'll be able to go against any ownership contract.) My point wasn't to reiterate that some sources have said that. I only mentioned it to say that it's not the only thing we've seen reported suggesting that there won't be a rogue situation.

As for a Super Bowl in St. Louis, I could totally see a one and done happening in St. Louis. It would be an otherwise successful event with completely unpredictable weather. It might be 70 degrees in January. It might be 5 degrees with a foot of snow.

HOWEVER, I don't actually see one happening (even assuming a stadium gets built). Whereas that seems to have been part of the deal with some of these other stadiums, I don't even think it's been brought up here.

Although, perhaps that's because there hasn't been an NFL owner directly involved in the plan here. Maybe if one becomes involved in the plan (which will have to happen for it to move forward), then maybe that'd be brought up again.

(Personally, I don't really care. The Super Bowl hasn't exactly proven to be a boon for the home market, and I'm not particularly interested in the Super Bowl unless my team is in it.)

[colortv]

The NFL generates what, $10-15 billion a year in revenue? In the big picture having Super Bowls in LA is not about the extra money to be gained, but the prestige and ability to put on even more of a spectacle for the NFL and it's owner's business partners and friends.

If you're hanging out with Fortune 500 CEO's and the political and financial elite, would you rather wine and dine them in Minnesota or LA?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/23/nfl-could-move-only-one-team-to-l-a-indefinitely/

Not sure what I think about that. On the one hand, I have zero doubts LA could support two teams in the long term and there's tons of profit to be made from two but having that open spot for relocation threats in stadium negotiations is valuable.

[2001mark]

The proposed stadium is a bit on the small side (in terms of seats) and even more damning, doesn't have a roof. New York "worked" because it was New York and the league got lucky with the weather. St. Louis ain't New York and only a fool banks on getting lucky with the weather.

I thought it was a post 9/11 thing, when chatter became reality about rewarding NYC, & they chose it well in advance.

Like New Orleans post Katrina, though the Superdome is as regular in that unofficial rotation as any.

Or not.

[Mac the Knife]

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.

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.

The NFL doesn't acknowledge or recognize any of their Bylaws as "non-binding." If they did, they wouldn't be in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, let alone supplemented by a pretty comprehensive relocation policy. As I last read these documents, the NFL could take any number of steps should a team "go rogue" and try to bolt for Los Angeles without league approval, up to and including "pulling a Don Sterling" and forcing a sale of the team, or even assuming control of and disposing of a franchise. And the language of the NBA's Constitution and that of the NFL are quite similar in these regards - meaning that if Donald Sterling couldn't challenge the NBA's bylaws in court successfully, no one's gonna win against the NFL's either.

The NFL has also recently changed its organizational structure, from an unincorporated association to a non-profit corporation - a paper distinction in the minds of most, but actually a very significant one in others (technically speaking, it's akin to what happened with the Arena Football League, only without the year off and without going bankrupt in-between); how it might impact franchise relocation is a question.

[colortv]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/RadioShows/FeatureInterviews/tabid/339/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19015/Terry-Bradshaw-Hears-Rams-100-Percent-Gone.aspx

Take it for what it is I guess.

[CubsFanBudMan]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/RadioShows/FeatureInterviews/tabid/339/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19015/Terry-Bradshaw-Hears-Rams-100-Percent-Gone.aspx

Take it for what it is I guess.

So Terry Bradshaw says he's hearing the Rams are "100 percent gone" but the fans should still be showing up in droves?

Make no mistake, this is a lame-duck season.

The Rams are potentially on the move. Rams fans want to be excited about this season, but a lot of them can't because they don't think they will be in LA. What do you think?

"I am hearing they are 100 percent gone. The opening song of Let It Ride is 'Money Talks.' You would have to think that is where they are heading. I am hearing they are absolutely gone. If you brought that up with anyone in the organization they would deny it, which they should. But that is the word we are all getting. Stranger things have happened. I would not be surprised if they stayed, but who would be coming with them (to LA)? The Raiders? The Chargers? Their new stadium was voted down. More will be unfolding by Christmas. You are gonna have a concrete answer."

Do you think the NFL will do anything to appease St. Louis?

"No, they do not want to go past 32 teams. They are not ready for expansion. They will not do anything. I do not think you will get a team. All I have heard is the Rams are gone. Everyone wants a better stadium and more revenue. Money talks. That is what the NFL is all about."

[Gothamite]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/RadioShows/FeatureInterviews/tabid/339/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19015/Terry-Bradshaw-Hears-Rams-100-Percent-Gone.aspx

Take it for what it is I guess.

So Terry Bradshaw says he's hearing the Rams are "100 percent gone" but the fans should still be showing up in droves?

That depends. Do they want another team?

I'm not likely to give Bradshaw's report much credence. If we knew that he was "hearing" it from Fox, already working its plans for next season, that would be one thing. But the transcript could just as easily be referring to his reading the same reports we all are, which would make it his opinion, nothing more.

[CubsFanBudMan]

St. Louis isn't getting another team, and it looks like nothing they could have done would have stopped Kroenke. A lot of false hope. Any of these protests or shows of support were better suited for last year than this year anyway, and as we discussed then, the St. Louis area had much more serious things to focus on at that time than how to appease a billionaire who didn't even want to be appeased. Maybe the BFIB were smarter than the rest of us all along. *shudder*

Not saying Bradshaw is any more credible than Joe Buck or anyone else saying they are gone, but the continued silence is deafening. In fact, the actions are pretty clearly speaking loudly.

And if the St. Louis plan is all about the next team ... good luck. The next team should be MLS if that's the case.

I am pleased that recent reports are saying only one team will be placed in L.A. I hope that is true. It doesn't seem like a good idea to go from 0 to 2 after 20 years.

[STL FANATIC]

Doubt as if Terry knows anything. I think the people reporting that nobody knows the outcome yet are the only people reporting the truth. (But, I'm of course only speculating.)

That doesn't mean I think it's a crazy prediction to assume the Rams are gone. But I don't think it's been decided, and I certainly don't think Terry Bradshaw knows.

And yeah, I don't think another team is something the NFL is going to do. Sure, maybe they would have done it if St. Louis would have emphatically filled the dome for the worst team in league history, but LOL.

I'm just eager to learn the fate. Only the NFL could make a mess this big and be able to deflect any harm.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Blues do ok, right?

The Rams experience has shown St. Louis isn't an awesome football market (in the way Cleveland or Buffalo are), so I wonder how good of a soccer market it would be.

Expansion teams tend to not do well, no matter the sport, and this would likely be the case with a non-coastal MLS expansion team (CR7 ain't playing in the midwest). If St. Louis only supports winners, I don't see how it'd be a good investment opportunity.

[Gothamite]

Hard to say. St. Louis has a strong youth soccer community, so it seems a good fit. But that doesn't necessarily translate into supporting a professional team.

FWIW, the buy-in for MLS is going up at a staggering rate. As late as a couple years ago you could get into the game for $40M or less. That's now nearly doubled, and by the time St. Louis puts a group together expansion fees may well be back up to the $100M that New York City FC paid.

[STL FANATIC]

I honestly believe St. Louis would kill it with an MLS team. There was a ton of excitement and good attendance for the sub-par first year USL-Pro team this year. And that's without the people like me who didn't get out to any games but would make it a priority to get out to multiple MLS games.

I think St. Louis can be an elite soccer market (realizing that it can only be SO elite due to size).

I will tell you until I'm blue in the face that St. Louis can be a good football market with reasonable efforts from the home team, but I wouldn't tell you it is or can be elite. I'd agree that it is not a Cleveland or Buffalo (although keep the team here for another 40 years and then let's see). I also don't think it should have to be Cleveland or Buffalo.

If the standard to have an NFL team is to unquestionably hand over money despite historically bad football, I think the NFL really needs to contract by about 20 markets, maybe—probably—more.

[IceCap]

"If St. Louis can't have a team then neither should twenty other markets" is exactly the kind of thing people are getting at when they accuse the St. Louis faithful of sounding entitled.

[BBTV]

That wasn't at all what he was saying. He's just saying that there's only 12 markets that have Cleveland or Buffalo levels of support, so it's not fair to hold St. L to that standard. Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and a few other places are special. You don't have to be special to be good. Not saying STL is a good market, because I don't really think it is, but I think sometimes people are being a little harsh ripping STL's posts. Granted it's easy to do so, but it's not always right.

[IceCap]

That wasn't at all what he was saying. He's just saying that there's only 12 markets that have Cleveland or Buffalo levels of support, so it's not fair to hold St. L to that standard.

No one's holding St. Louis to Cleveland or Buffalo standards of support. They're holding them to the very reasonable standard of simply being able to support NFL football. That 20 market middle of the bell curve that St. Louis has failed to measure up to.

No one's expecting them to be as passionate as, say, Cleveland fans. Just that they at least show up for prime time games so the team (and market) isn't embarrassed nationally.

St. Louis may try to spin this as them being punished for not living up to Cleveland or Buffalo standards, but that's just not the case. They couldn't even meet Miami's standards. And that's why the NFL will probably pull out.

[STL FANATIC]

Thanks BBTV. I appreciate that we ultimately seem to disagree but that you're giving my points the benefit of the doubt. You interpreted it correctly.

Ice, first off, I didn't say people were holding St. Louis to that level of support, I said IF they are.

But to your second point, none of these other markets have been put in the same situation that St. Louis has. It's honestly a unique situation. It really is. There's not a comparable set of circumstances in the league.

If you just plain don't believe St. Louis is a good market, I don't feel the need to go back and forth over that. But I wish you'd acknowledge the unique set of circumstances St. Louis has been through with the NFL.

Frankly, I won't spin this as St. Louis being punished for their support levels because I don't think the wise businessmen who run the league are being fooled by anything. They understand economics and how product and customer service drives support. I trust fully that they understand the circumstances.

If and when the NFL abandons St. Louis it will be purely because they have an opportunity and they view it as a business step upward. And I will criticize it on a moral principle (yes, I believe people should act morally, even in business transactions), I will criticize it as greedy, and I will criticize the owner as a giant turd (to be nice). But I won't think we were being punished because I simply don't think the things we're discussing are any more than a cover for the true factors in play.