Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

http://www.101sports.com/2015/10/30/gui ... s-race-la/

NFL’s “League Interests” Clause Could be Kroenke’s Loophole

Posted by: Brandt Dolce in National Football League October 30, 2015

In a League with a storied history of corruption and backroom deals, the NFL didn’t bother closing the door before doing business for this week’s town hall meeting at the Peabody Opera House regarding the Rams’ possible relocation to Los Angeles.

Commissioner Roger Goodell sent members of his executive committee to St. Louis for Tuesday’s meeting, and attendees could feel and hear Goodell’s influence as the panel listened to fans’ questions and concerns.

The NFL relocation guidelines came up often as Rams fans sounded off, letting NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman and the panel know exactly where they stand.

After several questions regarding the guidelines, Grubman admitted that his opinion wasn’t the one that needed to be changed, stating on more than one occasion that “my opinion doesn’t matter,” though he was the NFL representative tasked with being the League’s mouthpiece.

Grubman told the crowd that judging the relocation guidelines are reserved for a “moment in time,” and said that moment has yet to arrive.

That may be a fair stance if the owners wrote the guidelines with more caution and discretion.

However, a team has obligations to maximize fan support and attendance in its home territory, according to League documents.

In the NFL Constitution, Article 4.3 confirms that no club has an “entitlement” to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location.

Not even Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s ensemble of attorneys can argue that he’s met the above obligations. Kroenke hasn’t even approached fulfilling those requirements. He’s done the opposite.

Grubman also noted that the NFL’s 32 owners would judge adherence to the guidelines as a whole, versus looking at specific guidelines with more weight on some than others.

In short, the guidelines are merely suggestions written by, and under the enforcement of, the owners. The League’s owners will be the judge, jury, and executioner.

Article 4.3 of the NFL Constitution allows that relocation could be available if “compelling League interests warrant a franchise relocation”.

That ‘compelling League interests’ clause could provide a safety net for owners to relocate on a whim. The owners have the authority to determine the fate of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs to local economies.

Critics say the owners’ only regard is for their own financial and social improvement. The fans mean nothing more than a barcode and a deposit slip for men like Kroenke.

The League interests being included as a reason to relocate illustrates the insincerity of the process. If the League is ultimately concerned about doing what is truly best for its interests, it would do a market survey for every franchise’s home territory, and move the market with the worst financial profile to the city and region that makes the most sense for everyone in the League.

That won’t happen, though.

Kroenke has money to burn, and he wants to go to Los Angeles. The NFL has no interest in foiling another opportunity in L.A. If the League feels Kroenke represents the best chance for success, he’ll be on the next flight out of Lambert to Southern California. If the League feels another owner would be better suited for SoCal, said owner will get the green light.

Either way, it’s the owners’ decision. They wrote these guidelines, and they can use the “best interest” clause to break them.

At the Town Hall in St. Louis, Grubman referenced the game day experience being shared and irreplaceable.

“The fans have the ability to impact the game on the field.” Grubman said.

Turns out, they may have no impact off of it.

The NFL and the owners have gotten at least one thing right in the process of possible relocation: the right to do whatever they want.

Kroenke has money to burn, and he wants to go to Los Angeles. The NFL has no interest in foiling another opportunity in L.A. If the League feels Kroenke represents the best chance for success, he’ll be on the next flight out of Lambert to Southern California. If the League feels another owner would be better suited for SoCal, said owner will get the green light.

yupperdoodles^

Good God this whole process has been like root canal! In the end just bring them home Stan, bring them home!

What a mess these guys have on their hands.

Most of it has been created by Spanos. He mangled his fan base of 55 years, floated rumors of rebranding the team through VinnyB, and dragged a reluctant Davis along with him.

Is there any doubt that if the NFL had their choice of losing a team in SD or STL which city they'd choose? Yet, somehow Spanos is trying to sell the idea of dumping SD instead of STL as the best way to go. It's mind boggling to think that intelligent businessmen are buying into this. And we keep hearing that the LA Committee favors dumping SD. I gotta stop listening to these idiotic journalists.

The "Grand Compromise" position based on this past week seems to be green lighting Inglewood giving the Chargers the option of joining them in 2018 while SD has the proper time to give them a proposal and somehow providing Davis with the money St. Louis is offering the Rams to stay to build in Oakland. would the NFL owners agree to kick a $400M relocation fee to Davis?

In terms of Spanos not wanting to be a tenant, if you can't contribute to the construction you don't deserve an equity stake. For a guy so rich as Spanos he must think the NFL is A communist organization if he thinks he should be given an equity stake without putting any money into it

Oh and force Spanos to fire Fabiani to remove the toxicity from being able to make a deal with SD.

What if Kroenke's moment of time was January 1, 2015? There was no announced plan let alone an actionable one. The timing of the citizens initiative and then Inglewood approving it would have been just outside the 45 window for the NFL but it still have close enough.

The Ripper wrote:What if Kroenke's moment of time was January 1, 2015? There was no announced plan let alone an actionable one. The timing of the citizens initiative and then Inglewood approving it would have been just outside the 45 window for the NFL but it still have close enough.

Kroenke would have had to go rogue to do that. The other owners would not have voted him in with that unilateral move. I'm sure he was told that and said he'd play nice to get approved for 2016.

The thing here is that is interesting is that Kroenke has actually helped everyone by delaying. I guess the old adage that no good dead shall go unpunished applies here.

I'm still in the belief that this has been decided a while back. Spanos wants the best deal he can get out of it. Thats why he's being so resistant. In the end, the best deal is Kroenke's. The owners just want it to go smooth so they're trying to figure out the best way to appease Spanos. They have a couple months to iron it out.

Elvis wrote:Not even Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s ensemble of attorneys can argue that he’s met the above obligations. Kroenke hasn’t even approached fulfilling those requirements. He’s done the opposite.

This guy must not know a lot about lawyers...

As long as the Rams come home. I'd prefer no Chargers (or what ever they are going to call themselves,,, right ) to stay put. This can work out for everyone except that city that borrowed our team for 1/3 of my life.