NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

Petulant and entitled sounds like a great description of one of the sides in this whole debacle, but St. Louis isn't the one I'd stick that label on.

[Sport]

19 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

If there was ever one of the Big 4 that could be based in London, it would be an NFL team.  I've laid out the conditions it would take to field a team in London before.  But I'll try to re-hash them from memory as much as possible:

Red: I think this is an exaggeration.  For one, drafted rookies really don't have much leverage now.  As for coaches and free agents, there's only 32 head coaching positions. only 32 places to be an assistant coach, and there's only so many roster spots available in the NFL.  People will still chase the employment opportunities and the money, even if that means playing for London.  But more on this later.

Blue: You sort of touched on the logistics, but there are ways to make things more workable than you put out there.  I mentioned it before, but a team that calls London home would require a state-side home, a city that's on the eastern half of the US that doesn't have a team already...a city like Louisville, Memphis, St. Louis, Columbus, Birmingham, Orlando, etc.  This state-side home would be the London team's home for training camp, preseason games, practicing during the week, etc.  Conversely, the NFL would have to fund a second practice facility (with housing for players/coaches) in London for the visiting team.

The London team would almost certainly have to have block scheduling...two home, two road, two home, three road, etc.  As far as travel goes, both the London team (when playing state-side) and the visiting team heading to London could both fly out on Monday the week of the game (players don't have practice on Mondays anyway, mainly coaches doing game planning and game reviewing...tasks that are already digitized from the practice facility by team personnel).  The London team would fly to their state-side home, the visiting teams would report to the visitor's training facility in London.  As far as enticing players/coaches to play for London, selling them on "You and your family could live in this US city year-round while we'll supply you an apartment for four months in London (or similar housing owned by the team owner or the NFL).".  You would be in your state-side home for at least 8 weeks during the regular season, and you would be in your London home no longer than three consecutive weeks during the season.  There are ways to maintain a fairly normal NFL work week for the London team and the teams that'd play in London.

Obviously, the London team probably wouldn't be able to host Thursday or Monday night games, though their state-side home could be used to host one of these games.

I think the bigger obstacle would come from the media side of things more so than getting coaches, players, and visiting teams to London.

All good points, but feels like a lot of extra operations work for the team to go through just to get to he base level of competing. My point with everything I said is London for those reasons isn't nearly the same threat as LA. A team could move to LA in the middle of the night and play a home game the next day. It was out of the box easy. London will take some serous infrastructural changes that require loads of planning and the owner basically has to move to two cities. It's not as credible and NFL cities in stadium situations will be more likely to call the owner's bluff. 

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, STL FANATIC said:

Petulant and entitled sounds like a great description of one of the sides in this whole debacle, but St. Louis isn't the one I'd stick that label on.

I would ague otherwise. Suing a team that's leaving town, after meeting all legal and organisational requirements to do so? That's sour grapes.

I wouldn't call LA's attitude in all of this "petulant" or "entitled" either. They wanted their team back. A team that probably never should have left in the first place.

 

That keeps getting brought up, so I'll add in this. If St. Louis had built the EJD just a few years earlier? The football Cardinals would probably still be there. And the city probably wouldn't have signed such a team-friendly lease.

[Rockstar Matt]

14 hours ago, STL FANATIC said:

I think we really need to see the contract before any of us can even pretend to play lawyer here. One line quoted in the article seems to make it pretty clear that the Rams—as you allude to Matt—do have the right to cancel the contract. But it pretty clearly implies if not outright states that they must do in combination with the issuance of some form of refund.

 

To this point, it appears the Rams have not suggested to any St. Louis PSL holders that such a thing is taking place.

 

I don't expect this to be any massive hit to the Rams, but this actually does seem like an issue they may have to address.

 

Very true, none of us have a degree in Law, but it's fun to discuss it none the less!

 

Yes it does, but that's not what they're suing the team over, or at least the not the main suit. I thought they were saying that the PSL's they have are still valid and therefore they should have the first right to the PSL's in the Inglewood stadium, no?

[Gothamite]

There are two suits; one that seeks damages for the Rams moving because the team didn't tell them earlier they were moving, and may not have spent money had they known the team would be leaving, and one that seeks to carry the existing PSLs over to the Los Angeles stadium.

[Gothamite]

So we'll see what happens with these suits.  As we said, anyone can file but only claims with the appearance of merit will proceed.

[LMU]

Carson's Mayor Ain't Happy

[FiddySicks]

17 minutes ago, LMU said:

Carson's Mayor Ain't Happy

 

I'm having a problem not hearing the voice of Ernie from the George Lopez show when I read Albert Robles' quotes.

[The_Admiral]

Sorry about your toxic waste dump.

[DaytonBlue]

I believe if one of these lawsuits gets anywhere (small chance at best), it will be the one about the team not saying they were moving earlier, since they actually cite a law that they claim was broken, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

 

I think the suing for the PSL is a waste of time because of the clause Gothamite said.  My Dad used to have a PSL and when he gave it up a few years back (We still went to games but easier and cheaper with StubHub.) he read through this carefully and figured it wouldn't transfer to a new stadium in STL or result in a refund if they moved.  Since we could get tix through StubHub cheap, the PSL basically was worthless at that point even a few years ago.  

 

I can understand trying to get some of the $17 million back for the prep work on the imaginary riverfront stadium and that some pressure might get the NFL to cough up some of that, but this alderman in this link is just nuts...

 

St. Louis aldermanic president asks NFL to pay for Edward Jones dome debt

 

I still think Kroenke is a jerk, but it was a terrible lease and he was free to move.

 

I also won't hold my breath on MLS until I hear reliable sources give ownership names. 

 

 

 

[STL FANATIC]

On January 22, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Ice_Cap said:

I would ague otherwise. Suing a team that's leaving town, after meeting all legal and organisational requirements to do so? That's sour grapes.

I wouldn't call LA's attitude in all of this "petulant" or "entitled" either. They wanted their team back. A team that probably never should have left in the first place.

 

That keeps getting brought up, so I'll add in this. If St. Louis had built the EJD just a few years earlier? The football Cardinals would probably still be there. And the city probably wouldn't have signed such a team-friendly lease.

 

I don't blame LA one iota. Some of their fans have been jerks throughout the process, but I mean whatever. That's gonna happen. They deserve a football team and they didn't deserve to lose the Rams. No ill-will towards them.

 

I think Kroenke acted quite petulantly and entitled. I'd suggest—to your disagreement, of course—that he did not meet the organizational requirements. But we'll agree to disagree.

 

Regardless of that, though, his actions were almost undeniably petulant. He never spoke publicly. Until his application for relocation, he never told St. Louisans he was seeking to move the Rams. He ignored calls from the Governor (a man he says he's on a "first name basis" with) and Mayor. And he trashed the city and region and fans and made a point to release it publicly.

 

He may have been every bit within his rights, but he acted petulantly in the manner in which he exercised them.

 

The sooner the people on this board stop defending Kroenke, the better. You can keep your criticisms of St. Louis and their efforts to build a stadium. But stop turning Kroenke into some well intentioned guy who acted reasonably and with class. Look at the man's history. Every business relationship he's ever had has ended with lawsuits. The man seeks nothing more than money and will behave in any way necessary to acquire more of it.

 

 

As for the Dome and the Cardinals and whatnot. That's before my time. I can't comment with a great deal of intelligence on that. The truth is, though, the Dome likely just never should have been built. St. Louis was likely reasonable in choosing not to build it for Bidwell and the Cardinals. They then caved into a worse deal when they planned it for no one and ultimately finished building it for the Rams.

 

If the Rams had signed a lease with twice as much rent and no first tier clause, the Dome still would have been a bad deal for St. Louis. The whole thing was a mistake.

[STL FANATIC]

On January 22, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rockstar Matt said:

 

Very true, none of us have a degree in Law, but it's fun to discuss it none the less!

 

Yes it does, but that's not what they're suing the team over, or at least the not the main suit. I thought they were saying that the PSL's they have are still valid and therefore they should have the first right to the PSL's in the Inglewood stadium, no?

 

 

I THINK this is correct, but I guess I'd have to see the court filings to be sure. The other thing is, we don't know if the Rams have actually canceled those PSLs. It feels like they're canceled, but I would think canceling would require a specific and formal action of notification.

 

If they do that, and don't issue a refund, then I think there'd be basis for a separate or modified lawsuit.

 

But we'll see. It really does seem to me that the Rams might be required to do more than just ignore this and pretend those PSLs have evaporated. But I doubt all that much comes of this.

[STL FANATIC]

17 hours ago, DaytonBlue said:

I can understand trying to get some of the $17 million back for the prep work on the imaginary riverfront stadium and that some pressure might get the NFL to cough up some of that, but this alderman in this link is just nuts...

 

St. Louis aldermanic president asks NFL to pay for Edward Jones dome debt

 

So, I actually think the idea isn't bad. Reach out to the NFL and request they have a heart. Cheap political points if nothing else. No risk in doing so.

 

But Lewis Reed pushes it too much here. First off, while the "best sports city in America" isn't an unreasonable opinion, it's simply an opinion that doesn't belong in this request. (Side note: Reed doesn't specifically do this, a lot of people in STL keep citing this article as the reason St. Louis is the best sports city, completely oblivious to the fact that it is strictly based on team performance and has nothing to do with the fans.) Additionally, Reed asks for help with the remaining debt on the stadium rather than help with the $16+ million they spent trying to woo the NFL into staying. I think that's misguided.

 

The debt on the stadium was a bad deal the public made all their own and has to live with. I think the money spent on trying to keep the Rams was also a bad decision and is certainly legally all our own to deal with, but I think there's moral justification for requesting help from the entity that goaded the public into pursuing it and can afford to pay it back without even noticing. But Reed doesn't even request that.

 

So yeah, I thought his request was more embarrassing than helpful.

[dfwabel]

Might as well try to take it to court. Seattle got $$$ in a settlement with Bennett and OKC which went to retire most of the debt on KeyArena. However, Harris County (TX) didn't try to recoup for Astrodome or thought it would not be successful.

[Gothamite]

The Sonics broke their lease to move to Oklahoma City.  That's why Seattle got the settlement they did. 

[dfwabel]

^^^Bud Adams left Houston with time on the lease and much more $$$ in debt, but the city and county didn't sue.

[Gothamite]

Then Houston might have had a case. 

 

The Rams were free and clear of the lease, and had no legal ties. It was the CVC's choice to break the lease.

 

Besides, didn't we hear all about how the Rams leaving would free up the Dome for more events, and the city would make more money than they did setting eight weekends aside?   Seems like they might owe the Rams a couple bucks instead.

 

Look, I understand the hurt civic pride, but frivolous lawsuits can never restore that. 

[HedleyLamarr]

On 1/22/2016 at 1:05 AM, Rockstar Matt said:

 

PSL's don't work like that. They're only good for a specific stadium(s), in this case, the Edwards Jones Dome. Not for future unbuilt stadiums. The key point is in the contract which stated that the Rams reserved to the right to terminate the contract at any time. They can't be upset because they didn't read the fine print before agreeing to pay for PSL's. 

 

The STL task force had already said people would need to purchase new PSL's for the riverfront stadium they were proposing to build too, so would these people have sued the team then? Probably not

Bingo.

 

PSL's are basically owning a particular seat for every event in one stadium.  Joe Schmoe buys a PSL for Section 113, Row F, Seat 12.  He gets first crack at tickets for that seat for every event held in that building....Rams games, monster truck shows, NCAA basketball/football games, etc.  And that contract/agreement you sign when you purchased your PSL specifically says you're buying the seat for the building, not for the events held in the building.  You're making a contract with the building, not with the team's owner.

 

PSL's are a one-time pay fee...you don't pay annually.  So all these folks that bought PSL's own that seat in the Edward Jones Dome until that building gets torn down....which also means, should St. Louis get a team relocate there, that these folks that bought PSL's with intentions on getting first access to Rams tickets would now have first crack on getting whichever team's tickets if they play in the Edward Jones Dome.

[Gothamite]

I'm not sure at all that's the case. 

 

I can see if the CVC was selling the PSLs, then yes they could possibly extend to a new team. But if the Rams were selling them--and they must have been if the Rams are now being sued, right?--then they're only good for games played by the Rams in that stadium.   They couldn't possibly extend beyond the team's lease period. 

 

The PSL agreement also reportedly says that the license is extended to games played by the Rams in another venue (Busch Stadium, right?), because they had plans to do so.  The PSL agreement definitely states that the Rams may choose not to play the entire 30-year period in St. Louis, and that purchasers give up their right to sue if the team indeed makes that choice. 

[AnPheitseog]

A team in London would only have two choices: Play all the games at 6pm local/1PM EST or the 2pm/9:30 thing the NFL was trying. 

 

Also, block road trips for sure. (Going with the London Browns for example) could do Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland three weeks in a row.