NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[dfwabel]

It's dissapointing that tax dollars had to be used for it, but I am glad the Vikings will stay in Minnesota. Even more glad that we only have a few years of the :censored:hole metrodome left.

The only thing which occurred today was the announcement of a plan. There has been no vote and no real explanation of if there will be a referendum on the issue. The city operates it, but the team keeps all "football revenue"? That sounds fair.

[STL FANATIC]

While the information may be correct, it is the messenger (Ganis) who I question. Prior to his consulting business and working with the Rams, he never got his biggest project off the ground. He was the one who was going to build/develop the proposed Tampa Coliseum for the Lightning next to the old Tampa Stadium from 1990-1993. Two decades later, he is still quoted for the little knowledge he has.

Fair enough, but he was actually in the room at the time, and on this one topic I think his understanding of the process has some merit.

Lots of things have merit, but I have little reason to put too much stock in the words of a man who hasn't been involved for a while.

The feelings about the lease in 1995 may have little bearing on the feelings of the lease in 2012. Whether or not that was the general impression given when the lease was laid out in 1995, the terms of the lease in 2012 are what matters. Whether an argument can be validly made that the Rams are accountable for money remains debatable, but the decision won't be made because the original negotiation for the lease didn't give the feeling that the Rams would have to pay. The decision will be made based on the letter of the lease, and more importantly, the wills of the parties involved.

If the Rams want to stay and they want to help out, they will. If they don't, they won't. Even if the lease in black and white required the Rams to pay money (and it seems it doesn't, not in clear cut wording), the Rams could still dictate their release from the lease by simply not agreeing with the process and opting out.

So the bottom line is that this requires good faith (towards remaining in St. Louis) from the Rams in the first place. If that's there, this likely gets sorted out. And if it's not it won't.

I wouldn't expect to hear anything from the Rams until the last minute, so I won't worry too much until then.

[Gothamite]

But that was my point; the terms of the lease which have been released have certainly not suggested that the Rams were expected to pay for any of the upgrades. And he confirmed that was the general idea.

[STL FANATIC]

Well there is wording in there that provides a basis for the argument. That's true. It's simply an argument, but they didn't pull it out of nowhere, they cited specifically language. But it's far from black and white.

Gannis says that wasn't intended when the lease was written in 1995, but my point is the interpretation of a lease can certainly change in 17 years. Such is the nature of documents. Only what's completely clear is, well, completely clear. Everything else is open for discussion, original intention or not.

But as I said before, it's really fairly irrelevant anyways. The Rams intentions will dictate how this goes.

[Gothamite]

No, the language isn't there. At least, not in the parts of the lease the CVC publicly released.

Maybe it is there. But they haven't demonstrated that.

I'm also not sure that I agree with your basic premise. The Rams could be perfectly happy staying in St. Louis and leave anyway if the CVC doesn't accept their terms. You're accusing the Rams of negotiating in bad faith.

[rams80]

Well there is wording in there that provides a basis for the argument. That's true. It's simply an argument, but they didn't pull it out of nowhere, they cited specifically language. But it's far from black and white.

Gannis says that wasn't intended when the lease was written in 1995, but my point is the interpretation of a lease can certainly change in 17 years. Such is the nature of documents. Only what's completely clear is, well, completely clear. Everything else is open for discussion, original intention or not.

But as I said before, it's really fairly irrelevant anyways. The Rams intentions will dictate how this goes.

No, the NFL alone will insist the Rams hold St. Louis to the original intent of the agreement. There's no "hometown discount" in lease negotiations.

[STL FANATIC]

No, the language isn't there. At least, not in the parts of the lease the CVC publicly released.

Maybe it is there. But they haven't demonstrated that.

I'm also not sure that I agree with your basic premise. The Rams could be perfectly happy staying in St. Louis and leave anyway if the CVC doesn't accept their terms. You're accusing the Rams of negotiating in bad faith.

I've posted multiple times the language that allows the CVC to make the argument. Just because you chose to interpret it differently doesn't mean that language isn't there. The CVC may be stretching to make that language apply, but they are basing it off of specific language of the lease, I'm not sure why you keep denying this.

I'm not accusing the Rams of anything. I'm saying if they want to stay, they will work something out. If they don't want to stay, they'll have ample opportunity to ask for more than the CVC and the city can handle and leave. It's not about good faith or bad faith necessarily, but it is about true desire. If the true desire is to remain in St. Louis, they'll have to make a choice to push for less than they might be able to (or contribute significantly to the upgrades), and they know that.

[STL FANATIC]

Well there is wording in there that provides a basis for the argument. That's true. It's simply an argument, but they didn't pull it out of nowhere, they cited specifically language. But it's far from black and white.

Gannis says that wasn't intended when the lease was written in 1995, but my point is the interpretation of a lease can certainly change in 17 years. Such is the nature of documents. Only what's completely clear is, well, completely clear. Everything else is open for discussion, original intention or not.

But as I said before, it's really fairly irrelevant anyways. The Rams intentions will dictate how this goes.

No, the NFL alone will insist the Rams hold St. Louis to the original intent of the agreement. There's no "hometown discount" in lease negotiations.

I believe that to be incorrect. The lease was amended with a "hometown discount" the last time this situation arose. The team is free to negotiate as it wishes.

The NFL obviously isn't going to openly endorse a hometown discount and undercut the negotiating stance of the Rams. But they won't stand in the way of an agreement.

[Gothamite]

I agree that the NFL will let the Rams dictate, but only to a point. I don't see them being willing to undercut the substance of the original lease (such as waiving the "first tier" provisions, as some suggested the Rams might) for fear that it would set a bad precedent.

I've posted multiple times the language that allows the CVC to make the argument. Just because you chose to interpret it differently doesn't mean that language isn't there. The CVC may be stretching to make that language apply, but they are basing it off of specific language of the lease, I'm not sure why you keep denying this.

Because you admit that it's a stretch.

[Island_Style]

Take it for what it's worth. Tweet from a Jacksonville sportswriter.

Tania Ganguli‏@taniaganguli : Jaguars finished the day with 87% of last year's season tickets renewed in general bowl and just over 90% club seats renewed.

[4_tattoos]

Hypothetical situation time.

If the situation with the Oakland A's allows them to relocate to San Jose, that would pretty much leave the Raiders as the sole/primary tenant of the Colesium (spelling).In that situation, do you think the Raiders will A) pay for renovations to the Colesium (spelling) or B ) pursure relocation?

[bosrs1]

Hypothetical situation time.

If the situation with the Oakland A's allows them to relocate to San Jose, that would pretty much leave the Raiders as the sole/primary tenant of the Colesium (spelling).In that situation, do you think the Raiders will A) pay for renovations to the Colesium (spelling) or B ) pursure relocation?

Considering any "renovation" of the Coliseum would require a rebuild it would seem unlikely they'd stay without a substantial public contribution.

[bosrs1]

The Merry Go Round keeps spinning. Latest out of the sports world is that Stan Kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the Dodgers, and that the NFL thinks that the Dodger Stadium site would be a prime location for a new NFL stadium. AEG meanwhile is left to wonder, WTF.

[waltere]

The Merry Go Round keeps spinning. Latest out of the sports world is that Stan Kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the Dodgers, and that the NFL thinks that the Dodger Stadium site would be a prime location for a new NFL stadium. AEG meanwhile is left to wonder, WTF.

Wouldn't that necessitate getting rid of Dodger Stadium? No-one is talking about/wants to do that.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I'm not seeing that.

I don't think the LA Rams are dead if he doesn't win the Dodger war, but that sure couldn't hurt.

Owning both the shiny new local football team and an established baseball team is a very good start on the road towards starting a new regional cable network,

[bosrs1]

The Merry Go Round keeps spinning. Latest out of the sports world is that Stan Kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the Dodgers, and that the NFL thinks that the Dodger Stadium site would be a prime location for a new NFL stadium. AEG meanwhile is left to wonder, WTF.

Wouldn't that necessitate getting rid of Dodger Stadium? No-one is talking about/wants to do that.

Not necessarily. The Dodger Stadium parking lots or adjacent properties could be used for an NFL stadium separate from the ballpark. Not unlike the complex in KC (frankly I think that's what they were thinking).

As for a RCN... don't the Dodgers already own a portion of FSN West?

[waltere]

It might work, but it would need the parking lots to be extended further, and it'd still be a bit of a squeeze.

With two solid, legitimate proposals already in place for a stadium in LA this just feels very unnecessary.

[rams80]

NFL Network's Albert Breer Tweeted the Following.

Commissioner just called Chavez Ravine an "extraordinary stadium site" ... I've often heard it's the best place for an NFL home in LA.

-------------------------

ALARUM AND GENERAL DISMAY IN METRO ST. LOUIS

[DustDevil61]

The Merry Go Round keeps spinning. Latest out of the sports world is that Stan Kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the Dodgers, and that the NFL thinks that the Dodger Stadium site would be a prime location for a new NFL stadium. AEG meanwhile is left to wonder, WTF.

Noticed that, too. On the surface, it doesn't look good for St. Louis Rams fans; if he's going to buy the Dodgers, that's likely a long-term deal. But then again, there's usually more than what meets the eye.

[bosrs1]

The Merry Go Round keeps spinning. Latest out of the sports world is that Stan Kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the Dodgers, and that the NFL thinks that the Dodger Stadium site would be a prime location for a new NFL stadium. AEG meanwhile is left to wonder, WTF.

Noticed that, too. On the surface, it doesn't look good for St. Louis Rams fans; if he's going to buy the Dodgers, that's likely a long-term deal. But then again, there's usually more than what meets the eye.

Well we'll know inside a week how this is going to shake out regarding Kroenke since the Dodgers decision is supposed to be made by April 1 (though who knows how the bidding will go now that all 3 bidders remaining want the Dodger Stadium parking lot and so far McCourt is still hanging on to it.