duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

I don't doubt that some owners told Peacock about the $100M, but I absolutely doubt that they told him to put it into the public spending bill. And once the NFL told him twice to take it out, he should have.

The only reasonable explanations for his failure to do so are an inability to come up with the money any other way, or he actually thought he could publicly shame the NFL by putting it in. Instead, he gave them an out by failing to come up with a complete funding plan.

It's just maddening. I didn't want the Rams to move out of St. Louis. But can't argue with the process, which was more than fair to them. Peacock is somehow getting a free pass for his fumbles.

I'm not going to question your intentions. You're adamant that you're a midwest guy and don't want to see this stuff happen to midwest cities. I'll take you at your word.

And blackmail? Come on, man. Peacock and his group worked hard with the LA Committee leaders to come up with an economically viable plan. They did so. At the last minute, and with the understanding of the LA Committee, the plan changed slightly due to increased costs (costs that likely went up because the NFL kept asking for more out of the stadium), and they were advised they could anticipate an extra $100 million from the NFL. It remained economically viable. In the last 30 seconds, the NFL offices—the commissioner—took a stance against such a thing.

Peacock and his group weren't blackmailing the NFL. They were putting forth the best offer they could make. It wasn't good enough for the NFL, despite the fact they appear willing to accept a similarly structured offer elsewhere should one arise.

And on that note, that's the other issue I have. All the teeth gnashing by you over the fact that St. Louis didn't do enough because they didn't come up with that extra million. Their offer wasn't serious. Their offer was insulting. They were blackmailing.

Can we talk about how San Diego's offer wasn't anywhere near a final offer or how Oakland didn't even begin to make an offer? St. Louis said here's what we can do, we know it's a little short of what you want, can you at least ask our owner to start talking to us and see what we can work out? You call that blackmail.

San Diego said, we've kind of got a plan, but it needs a vote that may or may not pass. Oakland said we're not going to do anything for you.

And St. Louis is the one that gets labeled as the trouble maker and the deserving loser? Give me a break.

I just can't begin to understand seeing this situation as more than fair. I'd think the handful of posts above illustrate that this isn't just some sore loser, passionate, homer, St. Louisan talk. You're unquestionably giving the benefit of the doubt to the NFL, and that's so beyond bizarre to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting excerpt from that jacksonville.com article, from a guy who was actually speaking with NFL representatives through this process.

Dave Peacock, co-chairman of the St. Louis stadium task force, seemed resigned to life without the NFL. ... Peacock called the interactions with NFL leadership "a head-scratcher." He said NFL executives initially expressed support and optimism about the stadium project. In the end, he said, he realized the deck was stacked against St. Louis, perhaps the whole time.

"Having been through this process I'd say there was probably more of this that was contemplated and contrived than I realized," said Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive.

The change to a silent vote betrayed him as well, because it was 5-1 for Carson on the committee that he clearly seemed to be working with... amid reports of collusion FOR Carson, if you recall. And then 30-2 for Inglewood. Someone is probably lying to him now, as no one admits to him they switched their vote.

The classic, "If no one ever found out, would you?"

If my understanding is correct....the silent vote gets used when there's multiple options to vote for. If there's a vote of affirmation (such as, if only the Rams applied for relocation), there's no need for a silent vote. Or, a silent vote gets used initially for any vote?

Plus, wasn't the result of the initial vote something like 21-8-3 for Inglewood? 9-ish votes changed. About the only team that I can say definitely changed their vote is Oakland....they traditionally abstain their vote. But once their deal was made about being given second option, given an extra $100 million in G4 money, no relocation fee to move to another city, etc.....Oakland had to vote for Inglewood and agree to drop out as their end of the deal.

It was pretty strange to see the Relocation Committee's recommendation vote be one-sided in one direction and the league vote be one-sided in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that the secret ballot would have to be voted on before the actual vote. The New York Times post-mortem seems to confirm that:

Committee recommendations often sway the full ownership, but not Tuesday. Jones and the other Inglewood supporters pushed for a secret ballot, a process typically reserved only for choosing Super Bowl cities and new commissioners. This allowed owners who had expressed support for the Carson stadium to cross the aisle without having to publicly declare their preference.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/sports/football/newer-nfl-owners-show-muscle-in-tug-of-war.html?referer=&_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the NFL is getting a pass for admonishing St Louis for requesting an extra $100 million yet they turned around less than a month later and just gave it to Oakland/San Diego.

That's a dickin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the NFL is getting a pass for admonishing St Louis for requesting an extra $100 million yet they turned around less than a month later and just gave it to Oakland/San Diego.

That's a dickin'.

I still think that despite all the big talk, the NFL knew all along that Los Angeles had a one-team solution, and once Kroenke got the wheels turning on Inglewood, they knew in their heart of hearts that the toxic waste dump wasn't gonna happen and that forcing Spanos to work with Kroenke would get worse before it got better. St. Louis didn't have the right to extra money no matter what, but once Inglewood started happening, the relocation-fee revenue gave the NFL a way to say "okay, look, here's extra money to work stuff out in your backyards and stay out of the way," the NFL knowing again in their heart of hearts that they'd prefer not to walk out on one or two California markets. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chargers still get even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Reggie Bush is recovered and able to play when the time comes next season, what type of reaction do you all think he will get the first time he plays in LA at the Coliseum since his USC days? Given the controversy that came about and the subsequent penalties USC were hit with because of him, is there any reason to think he'll get booed out the building? Or has enough time gone by that USC fans have gotten over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Reggie Bush is recovered and able to play when the time comes next season, what type of reaction do you all think he will get the first time he plays in LA at the Coliseum since his USC days?

I don't know, "you don't have to worry about running out of bounds this time" is gonna be a little hard to chant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the NFL is getting a pass for admonishing St Louis for requesting an extra $100 million yet they turned around less than a month later and just gave it to Oakland/San Diego.

Because an extra $100M can be given to teams, once they request it. Not cities, but teams. That's really clear in Goodell's letter to Peacock.

If the Raiders and/or Chargers want it now, they can ask for it and will get it. If the Rams had wanted it, they could have put in the request. But by then the Rams had seen enough, and the city itself can't even ask for it under the rules, much less count on it.

As for the rest, I'm sorry. I'm incredibly frustrated by the process, and want to hash out a post-mortem. But this isn't the time for it, and I'm sorry for being insensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about $100 million like it's just a throw-in, the world is a terrible place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about $100 million like it's just a throw-in, the world is a terrible place

I think the worst is that $100 million is no sweat for stadiums, but an impossible lift when it comes to mass transit or even bridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the NFL is getting a pass for admonishing St Louis for requesting an extra $100 million yet they turned around less than a month later and just gave it to Oakland/San Diego.

Because an extra $100M can be given to teams, once they request it. Not cities, but teams. That's really clear in Goodell's letter to Peacock.

If the Raiders and/or Chargers want it now, they can ask for it and will get it. If the Rams had wanted it, they could have put in the request. But by then the Rams had seen enough, and the city itself can't even ask for it under the rules, much less count on it.

As for the rest, I'm sorry. I'm incredibly frustrated by the process, and want to hash out a post-mortem. But this isn't the time for it, and I'm sorry for being insensitive.

But, that's a little misleading. If the NFL TEAM in St. Louis wanted to negotiate a deal to stay in St. Louis the TEAM could accept St. Louis' deal and request the TEAM's $100 million stadium subsidy the NFL is handing out.

The problem I have with this, is that you're basically admitting the Rams had no intention of staying if they felt the city's deal was insufficient but weren't willing to request the $100 million that apparently was on the table for the taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams obviously didn't feel that the extra $100M would turn a mediocre deal into one worth taking. It wouldn't have taken a middle-of-the-road stadium and elevated it to top-tier. Nor would that extra cash have stalled the oncoming lawsuits or kept state legislators from pulling their funding.

I think by that point it was indeed too late. St. Louis had lost its chance to keep the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how the NFL is getting a pass for admonishing St Louis for requesting an extra $100 million yet they turned around less than a month later and just gave it to Oakland/San Diego.

Because an extra $100M can be given to teams, once they request it. Not cities, but teams. That's really clear in Goodell's letter to Peacock.

If the Raiders and/or Chargers want it now, they can ask for it and will get it. If the Rams had wanted it, they could have put in the request. But by then the Rams had seen enough, and the city itself can't even ask for it under the rules, much less count on it.

As for the rest, I'm sorry. I'm incredibly frustrated by the process, and want to hash out a post-mortem. But this isn't the time for it, and I'm sorry for being insensitive.

But, that's a little misleading. If the NFL TEAM in St. Louis wanted to negotiate a deal to stay in St. Louis the TEAM could accept St. Louis' deal and request the TEAM's $100 million stadium subsidy the NFL is handing out.

The problem I have with this, is that you're basically admitting the Rams had no intention of staying if they felt the city's deal was insufficient but weren't willing to request the $100 million that apparently was on the table for the taking.

Look at it this way: The Rams made their pitch, the city made their pitch, and their agreement on funding the stadium was $100 million off from each others. So when it came time to present their final offers, the city basically assumed, if not banked on, the team/NFL on making up that gap. The city rubbed the NFL and the Rams the wrong way when they included the $100 million as being on the Rams/NFL side of things after being told it was no guarantee they could get that.

The reason why Gothamite uses "blackmail" is because the city didn't want to look like the bad guy or the entity that didn't do enough in negotiating. When the city made it's final offer, they were daring the NFL/Rams to take on extra funding they didn't agree to. If the Rams/NFL didn't agree to it, the city was banking on the Chargers having enough pull to prevent the Rams from moving and going back to the bargaining table. Or, the city was hoping the NFL would be firm on their regulations on "the process of relocation". The city was trying to force the Rams/NFL's hand.

Let's not forget what this G4 money is....it's not gift money. It's a loan from the NFL. It's money that has to be paid back. Had the Rams agreed to that last deal, the team would be responsible for paying back the entirety of that $300 million loan, plus whatever interest accrues. The city wouldn't have been responsible for any of that $300 million+ loan getting paid back. Couple that with allegedly higher rent the Rams would have been paying and no guarantee that ticket sales will go up in a market where the team's received lukewarm attendance (at best) the last few years...I can see why the Rams wanted no part of that deal. The allure of making more coin in Los Angeles easily trumps the treading water they've been doing in St. Louis.

Sure, the Rams are starting at a minus of $2 billion with the stadium project, but they'll make that money back quickly. Especially if a second team becomes a part of the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams made one pitch the entire time. That was in 2012, and it was not a serious or realistic offer. (Nor was the CVC's. From the CVC's standpoint, the money needed to satisfy first tier couldn't possibly justify just a 10 year commitment. And the Rams, of course, knew that, so they set out on exploiting that so they could be freed from the lease.)

Aside from that, the Rams weren't making any offers.

Also, Hedley, while the St. Louis plan did officially end up listing it as G4 money, it was originally considered just other funds until they tidied up the plan. And the NFL—as far as I can tell—has given no indication that the $100 million they'll be giving to Oakland (or San Diego) is a G4 loan, I don't believe. It may indeed be a gift.

Also, yes, the Rams would have been paying higher rent. They essentially played in the EJD for free. They paid a mere $250,000. The new stadium plan asked for a meager $1.5 million. Still insanely low on the rent spectrum. The Rams did and would have done far more than tread water in St. Louis. That's an absurd description of any NFL club.

They'll make more money in LA, there's no question about that. But teams aren't supposed to be allowed to move just for that purpose. They were allowed to move because every billionaire in the league is going to make more money off of them being there. And principles and rules be damned when that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll make more money in LA, there's no question about that. But teams aren't supposed to be allowed to move just for that purpose. They were allowed to move because every billionaire in the league is going to make more money off of them being there. And principles and rules be damned when that's the case.

I don't see why they didn't just say that in the first place. It sucks for St. Louis, but it's best for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL mandated the entire process and dragged it out to keep St. Louis involved (whether you believe it a genuine opportunity or increased extortion). I lay that totally at the feet of Goodell, who mismanaged the whole mess.

Everyone would have been better off if the league just let Kroenke go last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodell, who mismanaged the whole mess.

As has been doing his entire tenure. Part of me will always believe that Goodell was chosen to be commissioner in the full knowledge he could handle being the face of a lot of greedy, horrible people's nefarious doings in the name of blind greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll make more money in LA, there's no question about that. But teams aren't supposed to be allowed to move just for that purpose. They were allowed to move because every billionaire in the league is going to make more money off of them being there. And principles and rules be damned when that's the case.

I don't see why they didn't just say that in the first place. It sucks for St. Louis, but it's best for business.

Seeing that made me think of this guy...

good%20business_zpsnngmsfkh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodell, who mismanaged the whole mess.

As has been doing his entire tenure. Part of me will always believe that Goodell was chosen to be commissioner in the full knowledge he could handle being the face of a lot of greedy, horrible people's nefarious doings in the name of blind greed.

Well, that's part of the job description. He's certainly paid well enough to take the heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL mandated the entire process and dragged it out to keep St. Louis involved (whether you believe it a genuine opportunity or increased extortion). I lay that totally at the feet of Goodell, who mismanaged the whole mess.

Everyone would have been better off if the league just let Kroenke go last year.

Concur. I don't think the process would have been any more just doing that. But as it were, that would have been the least headache for everyone involved.

On the other hand, the NFL didn't want to screw over their loyal buddy Spanos. And while they didn't exactly give him what he wanted, it looks increasingly likely he'll be in LA soon. That wouldn't likely have happened if Kroenke was allowed to move last year.

So to the NFL and only the NFL, they may feel decent about what the trail they've blazed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.