St. Louis Rams SOLD (pending NFL approval)

[STL FANATIC]

It's a done deal. In the NFL stuff like this doesn't go to a vote unless it has the votes.

What happened with Khan though?

He didn't have a Wal-Mart heiress for a wife (which helps in terms of financing and corporate partnerships), was less independently wealthy than Kroenke, and also was having some disagreements with the IRS regarding tax payments.

I also suspect Kroenke is a more acceptable candidate to the Good Ol'Boys network than a Pakistani emigrant.

I don't think the NFL cares one whit about that. The only color which interests them is green, and Khan has had a problem producing enough of it.

Not really.

There's nothing suggesting that Khan wouldn't be a suitable NFL owner.

It's simply that Stan Kroenke had always reserved the right to match an offer. He's exercised that right. He is in a situation that breaks league rules, right now, however.

So that technically gives the NFL the option to pick Kroenke or Khan, but it's not like that's the official decision at stake. Officially the only decision the NFL is making is whether or not they will allow Stan Kroenke to bypass the rules (or determine a compromise) in order to become an eligible owner. Because once he's eligible, he's allowed first dibs on the team.

Were the NFL to rule him in-eligible, then Khan becomes a factor again, and then they could look back into his finances to see if he's an owner they want.

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe the NFL isn't/hasn't done both at one time. They know the actual situation vs. the technical situation. But I guess my point is that it's not as if the NFL has decided Shad Khan isn't a viable NFL owner. All they've really decided (or seem likely to decide) is that Stan Kroenke is a guy they want, and that Shad Khan doesn't blow them out of the water (which is what he would have to do for the NFL to rule against Kroenke).

I'm going in circles, but in no way is the NFL saying Khan doesn't have the finances if Stan Kroenke weren't in the picture. (I'm not saying he does, I don't know. But that's not what any of this means.)

[Gothamite]

I'm going in circles, but in no way is the NFL saying Khan doesn't have the finances if Stan Kroenke weren't in the picture.

The NFL never said that publicly, but all indications were that they were saying so privately. The league was publicly wary of Khan's financing plan from the very beginning, and if they're willing to go that far on the record there was more behind closed doors.

In the absence of a bid from Kroenke, the NFL might have decided that Khan's finances were sufficient. Possibly. But he was never a slam-dunk, except in as much that other, more liquid, bidders failed to materialize.

[STL FANATIC]

The sale to Stan Kroenke has been approved by the league unanimously.

I read earlier this week he might just being buying 30% for now (so he'd own 70%) in total and buy the other 30 later, but I'm not sure where that currently stands.

[DustDevil61]

The sale to Stan Kroenke has been approved by the league unanimously.

I read earlier this week he might just being buying 30% for now (so he'd own 70%) in total and buy the other 30 later, but I'm not sure where that currently stands.

You beat me to it, STL Fanatic.

Here's a link.

So, again, what does this mean for the Rams in the long term?

[IceCap]

So, again, what does this mean for the Rams in the long term?

[Gothamite]

You may be right. St. Louis better start saving for that new stadium....

Interesting - they are making him give up his majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalanche. Willing to set aside the cross-ownership rule, but only temporarily.

[Brian in Boston]

Interesting - they are making him give up his majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalanche. Willing to set aside the cross-ownership rule, but only temporarily.

Eh. If the Kroenke's really want to hang-on to the Nuggets and Avalanche, Josh Kroenke will more than likely end up "buying" the majority stake in both teams from his father. Wherever will he "find" the money?

[STL FANATIC]

Kroenke's not gonna look to move the Rams. He'll try to keep them in St. Louis. Ultimately he'll demand a new stadium, though, and he won't cut St. Louis too many breaks before he decides to pack up.

I think he'll probably be willing to wait rather than jump as soon as the lease may allow it. But he's not going to wait forever and if there isn't signs of progress.

That said, I'm also confident a new stadium will be built.

[Gothamite]

Interesting - they are making him give up his majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalanche. Willing to set aside the cross-ownership rule, but only temporarily.

Eh. If the Kroenke's really want to hang-on to the Nuggets and Avalanche, Josh Kroenke will more than likely end up "buying" the majority stake in both teams from his father. Wherever will he "find" the money?

Not from his father.

If it's a loan, the NFL would likely consider that as Stan retaining ownership. If it's a gift, the IRS will have something to say about that.

The fact that the NFL is letting him move the other teams into Josh's name only for a limited time tells me that he may well have to divest himself of them. At least the controlling interest.

[rams80]

Interesting - they are making him give up his majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalanche. Willing to set aside the cross-ownership rule, but only temporarily.

Eh. If the Kroenke's really want to hang-on to the Nuggets and Avalanche, Josh Kroenke will more than likely end up "buying" the majority stake in both teams from his father. Wherever will he "find" the money?

Not from his father.

If it's a loan, the NFL would likely consider that as Stan retaining ownership. If it's a gift, the IRS will have something to say about that.

The fact that the NFL is letting him move the other teams into Josh's name only for a limited time tells me that he may well have to divest himself of them. At least the controlling interest.

So his mother then?

[Gothamite]

I'm still thinking "no."

[STL FANATIC]

I'm still thinking "no."

I think they're probably thinking "no" now and then won't care in a couple of years.

1. They like Kroenke and want him as part of their league. There's a reason they're waiving the rule for now.

2. The rule is at best debatable. The purpose is pretty plain, but I think in practice it's a silly one.

3. In this instance, the rule hasn't made since for about 15 years. The NFL defines a majority owner as having to own at least 30% of a franchise. Stan Kroenke has owned 40% of the Rams since 1995. So for 15 years he's owned more than the required amount for a majority owner despite his vested interests in the Denver clubs (I guess it might be more like 12-13--not sure when he purchased them). To serve it's purpose instead of just playing semantics, the cross-ownership rule should have blocked Kroenke in 1995 or not at all. It's silly that he was allowed to own 40%, but when the day came to give him the title of majority owner (a title he would have been up to assume if the Rosenblooms had decided to sell just 30% of their share to another buyer without Kroenke buying any) then the NFL started questioning it.

[Gothamite]

3. In this instance, the rule hasn't made since for about 15 years. The NFL defines a majority owner as having to own at least 30% of a franchise..

Source?

I've read that the NFL requires every ownership group to have a General Partner owning at least 30%, but that doesn't necessarily make that GP a "majority owner" under the rules.

[STL FANATIC]

3. In this instance, the rule hasn't made since for about 15 years. The NFL defines a majority owner as having to own at least 30% of a franchise..

Source?

I've read that the NFL requires every ownership group to have a General Partner owning at least 30%, but that doesn't necessarily make that GP a "majority owner" under the rules.

EDIT: Maybe you got me all along. Seems it was I that misread your post. I can't find a link--all search terms I can come up with just list a bazillion articles about Kroenke's purchase right now. I just understood it that way in something I read. You could be right. Even so, I think the point still kinda stands. He already had a bunch invested in this team--why does it only matter now?

----

You're correct. I didn't mean to imply 30% automatically constitutes a majority owner.

My point was that Kroenke already owned a "majority stake" if you will. His level of financial involvement was already more than some majority owners in the league, and yet supposedly a conflict of interest would only pop-up if he were to take over the title of Majority Owner? Am I being clear or am I wording this terribly?

I'll try one more time.

Kroenke already had as much at stake in the St. Louis NFL franchise as he could have under the title of Majority Owner, so why is it that it wasn't already a conflict of interest if it was ever going to be.

[Gothamite]

Perhaps, but it's not surprising that they have to draw a line somewhere. Tons of regulation is forced to draw a line - age of majority, age of consent, blood alcohol level for DUI, tax rate based on income, etc. You need a line, even an arbitrarily one, or one constantly shifting by those in charge.

Considering how many teams are owned from time to time by corporate entities, which may or may not have subsidiaries with interests in other teams, I can see the NFL not wanting those rules to kick in at an ownership stake percentage of 0%.

And yes, there is a distinct difference between being a 40% owner of something and a 51% owner. So that's as good a place to draw the line as any.