I listed (alphabetically) Baltimore, Cincinnatti, Dallas, Green Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh.

PFF lists as their top 7 Dallas, PHiladelphia, Baltimore, Green Bay, Houston, Cleveland, Cincinnati.

That’s an overlap of 3: Dallas, Cincinnatti, Green Bay.

I didnt list Cleveland or Houston or Philadelphia (though Jack listed Phil)

They list Pittsburgh as 8th.

They list New Orleans as 11th.

Latest Thoughts on Stan Kroenke, the Rams and the NFL in St. Louis

Shane Gray

January 08, 2015

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15973/Latest-Thoughts-on-Stan-Kroenke-the-Rams-and-the-NFL-in-St-Louis.aspx

By now, most everyone is aware of Sam Farmer’s Los Angeles Times report that broke the news of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s plans to team up with Stockbridge Capital Group to construct an NFL stadium and multifaceted development at Hollywood Park — a location that has been rumored as a potential league venue site since the mid 1990s.

As Farmer points out, there have been more than a dozen L.A. area stadium proposals that have come and gone over the last 20 years. Will the aforementioned Kroenke plan, however, finally be the one that goes from conceptualization to reality and ultimately bring the NFL back to L.A.? At this point at least, the answer to that question would appear to be a yes.

With that said, I would like to touch on a multitude of topics in response to the prospective Kroenke/Stockbridge Capital Group stadium development:

-As I have pointed out previously, there has never been a team relocate with a state of the art venue plan approved in its current market, even prior to the introduction of the NFL’s relocation guidelines and certainly not since they were tweaked and tightened following the moving mayhem that took place in the 1990s. When considering how the NFL controls the L.A. market, that specific league guidelines are in place related to potential relocation and the above-mentioned historical precedence that no team has moved with an approved stadium plan in place at home, local fans have reason to maintain hopes of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

-In spite of the thinking of a vast many observers, the Rams future is a long way from being decided.

For one, As Bill Plaschke of the L.A. Times emphasized here with supportive evidence, both the pro Rams to L.A. crowd and the keep the Rams in St. Louis contingent should take a wait-and-see approach in regard to anything NFL to L.A. related. Those who are suggesting the Rams to L.A. is somehow a done deal need a reality check.

As I detailed in this feature a few months back and as was covered this week by Farmer and Nathan Fenno of the L.A. Times, the league and its franchises have extensively used the nation’s number two market to help spur deals in other cities. In fact, the Farmer/Fenno column linked above reports that 18 teams have been connected to L.A. at some point in recent years.

For whatever reason(s) — in spite of lessons that should have easily been learned by the history shared above — people are completely convinced that this time it just has to be different. Inexplicably, people in the media and other interested observers alike have already decided that there is no chance that any of this could be leverage related.

But why in the world is that stance taken? Aren’t these people looking at this from a very close-minded and limited perspective?

How come people assume that there has to be a limit to a leverage play, rather than understanding that the bigger the play the bigger the possible reward? Short of loading up the moving vans and driving out of town, there is no official leverage limit that actually exists. Even then — as was evidenced with the Seahawks fiasco in 1996 — that doesn’t guarantee a move.

In short, the bigger the play the bigger the potential response in terms of getting a larger and better deal from a city and state. To think otherwise is foolish.

I guess the fact that The Kroenke Group voluntarily released this information days before the local proposal was to come out — and yes we are talking about “Silent Stan” here — could not have possibly involved other motivations other than the ones that people assume that it did. Apparently, it is inconceivable that this news broke intentionally for the reason of upping the ante for a better offer from Peacock/Blitz just before the proposal was submitted to Nixon and released to the public. Nixon, by the way, will get to recommend changes that he sees fit upon viewing the plan.

I mean, I know it is just beyond absurd to consider, but what if the potential L.A. project indeed was made known at this time to help ensure that the St. Louis proposal was pressured to the utmost at the last second to entice the very best offer possible in the next few days? Nah, that couldn’t possibly be something that a shrewd businessman would even consider doing. Impossible.

Sorry for the overly thick use of sarcasm, but it is as if people just assume there is some imaginary line in the sand that says if you cross this point then what is occurring just cannot possibly involve an effort to extract a more beneficial deal. It’s as if the thinking is that if it looks a little real and a little threatening then that could indeed be leverage, but when something is done that actually creates an even greater position of power and positioning and looks even realer, well, then that somehow eliminates the possibility of leverage.

Sorry, but just as it is silly to dismiss the potential that Kroenke could ultimately make a strong attempt to both build a venue in L.A. and move the Rams, it is also just as silly to assume that there is no chance that any of this is possibly related to coercing an optimal offer.

On that point, Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today and Woody Paige of the Denver Post are among many who have suggested the possibility of a very powerful leverage play being at work here in an attempt to get the very best deal conceivable in Missouri.

Secondly, even if a move is ultimately attempted, its approval is far from a lock. The league tightened and altered the moving guidelines since the musical chairs of relocation that occurred during the 1990s, as former Raiders CEO Amy Trask told Jim Thomas in this report. A team would have to prove it has exhausted all options in its current market and meet a plethora of requirements as detailed in the NFL’s rules for relocation — many of which the Rams have not yet met.

Let me be clear: the Rams did not meet relocation guideline requirements during the arbitration process, in spite what some desperately want to believe. They have certainly not “exhausted all options in the current market”, among other prerequisites which have not been met.

Yes, the Rams would be free to go due to the arbitration ruling if St. Louis was not trying to put together a viable new stadium plan. If that were the case, then yes, the arbitration process would have went a lot further towards placing the Rams in position of fulfilling the league’s relocation criteria. But with St. Louis working on other options and a stadium plan that the league is said to like, the arbitration process was not anything close to the be all/end all related to the Rams future in the STL.

In addition, Bleacher Report’s Jason Cole reports that Chargers owner Dean Spanos believes he has at least nine votes in place to block an attempted move even if Kroenke were to attempt to uproot the Rams.

Thirdly, even if Kroenke attempts to move without approval, an unapproved move could cost a rogue franchise their share of league-wide TV revenues, among other possible penalties. Obviously, such financial losses would be significant as each NFL team took in nearly $200 million in TV revenues a year ago.

With all that said, there are a plethora of possible outcomes regarding this situation, including but not limited to:

-The possibility of Kroenke developing and profiting from the land around the proposed new edifice and then leasing the football facilities out to another team or team(s) — even if done in the name of Stockbridge — and profiting from both the stadium and surrounding development while keeping the Rams in St. Louis in a new venue with added revenue streams that would significantly increase the value of his franchise while avoiding a relocation fee and other costs associated with a move. That would be quite the coup, but would anyone put it past him at this point?

As for Governor Nixon’s Dave Peacock/Bob Blitz stadium task force and their coming proposal, they will and should forge forward with the retention of the Rams being the first priority of their effort to secure a multidimensional development that would include a new stadium, the retention of the NFL, the prospects of an MLS franchise as well as extensive ancillary development surrounding the facility.

Rather than throwing their hands up and crawling into the fetal position due to the news of Kroenke’s L.A. interest, the Peacock/Blitz team should be all the more determined to fight for the Rams by continuing to work directly with the NFL to bring about a solution that makes it virtually impossible for the organization to relocate.

Some have said, why try to keep them if they want to go?

First, far too many are assuming the appearance of wanting to move equates to a fact that Kroenke indeed desires to move. In spite of the strong indications that this is the case, it is not necessarily so.

Secondly, there are but 31 cities in the world who play host to the National Football League, and hosting one of the franchises is a big deal. If the Rams leave, there are no guarantees that another team will ever again call the Gateway City home.

Thirdly, for those who are justifiably upset at Kroenke, why let him have what many believe he wants without fighting tooth and nail to keep the Rams? Why make it easy on him? Why not work with the NFL to do everything possible to stop him from removing the Rams from Missouri? For those angry with the Rams owner, what better way to get back at him than for the city and state to come up with a plan that prevents him from getting what many have decided he desires elsewhere?

Finally, if the NFL blocks a move of the Rams and Kroenke is dead set on getting to L.A., he might then decide to sell the franchise and buy another team to perhaps attempt to move to California rather than keeping ownership of the Rams in St. Louis. At that point, he could either be stuck in the Lou or sell the club to another ownership group.

With all that and more considered, leaders should clench their jaws and move ahead with steadfast determination to see this through and come away with their stated goals achieved. Now is not the time to quit, it is the time to start fighting with enhanced fervor.

While focusing on the Rams, it is wise that the Peacock/Blitz team continue to look into other alternatives (hello Raiders or Jags) and do what is reasonable to retain the NFL and move forward with a project that could do at least four things:

1: If done correctly, it will retain an NFL presence in some way shape or form — preferably with the Rams. After all, starting with a new fanbase for a third time would be far from an ideal outcome.

2: A new venue would free up the dome to add dates from August through January and increase revenues there substantially. At last report, the dome/convention center was bringing in north of $150 million per year. With the facility enhanced and adapted, it is possible that eventually those revenues could double (and certainly create a net gain annually over what new venue costs would be per year).

3: This project would facilitate development of blighted land and bring year round jobs to a region of St. Louis that could use them, as well as enhance tourist activity which also generates more revenue.

4: A new venue could also bring the MLS to the Gateway City, something that would generate added revenues at the stadium and in the city while making a whole lot of soccer lovers very happy.

–As for the possibility of adding another NFL team if the Rams indeed attempt a move and get away, a new venue could accomplish that feat with the increases in franchise value and revenue streams it would bring considered.

An educated guess would suggest that both the Raiders and Jaguars could be in play under that scenario.

The Raiders would bring a natural rivalry with the cross-state Chiefs (assuming they remained in the AFC West), and the Jaguars would bring owner Shad Khan and top executive Mark Lamping — among others — home to the St. Louis region.

–At this stage, the best thing for fans in both St. Louis and L.A. to do is to let the dust settle just a bit.

There are a lot of variables at play here, and this saga in St. Louis — and in L.A. — is far from over. In fact, there will be several more twists and turns before things are ultimately resolved.

Some more. Some stuff the guy who edited that version didn’t include. Pretty much all relocation stuff.

—

Any word on how the NFL reacted to this news of the stadium in LA!
by Tseals January 6 at 2:23 PM

They issued a pretty standard statement, but I think they made it pretty clear they would like Kroenke to follow the relocation guidelines, which he isn’t at the moment. I’ve heard second-hand, that some in the league weren’t happy with Kroenkie’s move.

Even if the Rams do stay in St. Louis it will clearly be against the owner’s wishes. Do you think Kroenke has to sell the team if he can’t force a move? As of yesterday I started questioning my allegiance to the team solely because of the owner.
by LaughingLion January 6 at 2:26 PM

That’s a very interesting question and I don’t really know the answer. But it’s all moot unless St. Louis comes up with a viable stadium plane.

If the league rejects a Rams move to LA, would league rules allow Kronke to own the Rams in St Louis and the new stadium in LA?
by Mike G January 6 at 2:32 PM

I’ve asked the league about that, they declined comment.

Jim, was wondering about the ‘rule’ about a team not being able to move when the city is acting in good faith to keep a team. If the city comes up with a viable plan / stadium deal, is there any way that Kroenke can still move?
by Glendale Kingpin January 6 at 2:34 PM

At this point, not if the league follows it’s relocation rules. So let’s assume St. Louis comes up with a viable stadium plan. Then it becomes a matter of whether the league will enforce it’s relocation guidelilnes or just let Kroenke move.

If STL puts forth a viable stadium plan, and if they then violate their own rules and allow Kroenke to move, then any owner should be able to move for any reason. Theoretically then, one could move to STL (Shad Kahn?). Right?
by LC January 6 at 2:36 PM

That’s the can of worms the NFL doesn’t want to open. The last thing they want is a return to the 80s and 90s when teams were moving left and right.

Can you comment on what I think looks very strange – how is it that Kronke is willing to pend 1billion+ on LA, but not spending on a new stadium in St Louis?
by Zemlak January 6 at 3:02 PM

Obviously, he feels in the long run that he can make more money in LA. And I believe a part of Stan is enamored with the prospect of owning a team in the nation’s second-largest market.

Hi Jim, if say a majority of owners decide against Kronke’s moving Rams to LA but Kronke has Goodell on his side, does Goodell have the powers to overrule those majority of owners who are against the move?
by sKarnam January 6 at 3:21 PM

It doesn’t take a majority of owners to vote down a move. It takes 9 “no” votes. (Or 24 of 32 yes votes). Goodell can’t overrule the owners.

Does the City of St. Louis have any recourse or do we just have to sit here and take it with our fingers crossed that in the next decade some other owner seeks a new stadium and we are their white knight?
by Tackleberry January 6 at 3:26 PM

The best way to avoid just “sitting there and taking it” is to proceed with the Peacock and Blitz stadium plan and see it through. Make it as tough as possible for the league to say yes on relocation.

Is there any truth to the rumors that Chargers owners already have more than 8 owners on their side against Rams moving to LA?
by sKarnam January 6 at 3:28 PM

I’ve heard this as well. I heard a month or so ago that Kroenke currently _ and I underline currently _ doesn’t have the votes.

Assuming Stan just thumbs his nose at the NFL relocation guidelines (like Al Davis did), does the NFL have any teeth to prevent him from moving? Like forcing the Rams to forfeit every home game not played in St. Louis? That would do it.
by Bob in Denver January 6 at 3:29 PM

The NFL didn’t have relocation guidelines when the Rams, Raiders, Browns, Oilers, Cardinals and Colts moved. I’ve heard there are other financial disincentives to moving as well.


You always mention the rams not qualifying to move based on set guidelines for moving. What guidelines will prevent them from moving?
by eman January 6 at 3:44 PM

For one, exhausting all efforts to make it work in the current market. For another, you simply can’t move just to enrich yourself.

Jim how much money is enough Stan is a Billionaire married to a Billionaire and I would bet that the Rams in Stl don’t lose money
by Ramsfan1977 January 6 at 3:48 PM

It’s basically impossible to lose money in the NFL because of all the TV dollars. By some accounts, I think the Rams made $18 million last year.

Do you think the controversy regarding Ferguson and the fallout from the business community also gave a nudge toward LA for Kroenke?
by Aaron Johnson January 6 at 3:53 PM

Of course not. It’s all about business, all about the money, with Stan

Isnt there a clause inthe bylaws saying that a relocation can be approved if it is in the best interest of the league? Couldn’t the league just say this a move in the best in the best interest of the league and negate the other rules?
by alex January 6 at 4:23 PM

The league can say anything it wants to justify a move. But to anyone who has been paying attention, I think it’s very obvious that Kroenke hasn’t exactly been working night and day to hammer out a stadium deal in St. Louis.

At first I wondered about the friendly firing angle, but that doesn’t add up.

Here;s my take on the whole Schott thing.

First, Fisher liked his approach. And actually that just accords with what I have heard and read…for example, I remember analysts on broadcasts (usually ex-players) praising his playcalling. Clayton, when directly asked what people around the league thought of him, said he was seen as solid. That fits right with what I saw, personally. I know some disagree but I actually thought he did well in the circumstances.

Next, I think he wanted out because of everything he says–family being a consideration. Which means, probably, that he cares about what his wife thinks (Schott is 41 and so a different generation kind of coach. What his wife thinks matters.) And he wants to be in line to be a college head coach…being the OC at Georgia will help him build that.

In terms of replacing him, I do hear the people who say a new OC and new system will be problems, but I actually think it will be less of a problem this year then it would have been before.

The Giants and Ravens fixed their offenses last off-season by adding OL players and new coordinators. Their offenses dramatically improved after falling off badly in 2013. I think the same thing is possible with the Rams, even though the Rams are younger overall in comparison to Baltimore and NY.