[dieterbrock]

People throw out the term "the NFL" as if it means something. What is "the NFL"??
IMO It's a group of owners with individual agendas who formed a coalition to provide legal protection and increase revenue
They in turn "elect" some pigeon to be their mouthpiece when necessary.
I believe for the most part, they operate individually and don't give a rats ass about the other teams, until it affects their wallet.
I don't believe we are there. I don't think the NFL worries about legal precedent as it pertains to stadiums.
Teams move for 2 reasons, lousy city support or shady ownership.
Threat of relocation has only come up because of a combination of the two.
So if an owner has his ducks in a row like 90% of them do, the outcome here has nothing to do with them.
And that scares the crap out of me.
I think "the NFL" isn't engaged because as a whole it just doesn't affect them. And what input they are forced to give may be used against them.
It's ambivalence that leads to poor decisions and that's where I see this heading.

[Hacksaw]

People throw out the term "the NFL" as if it means something. What is "the NFL"??
IMO It's a group of owners with individual agendas who formed a coalition to provide legal protection and increase revenue
They in turn "elect" some pigeon to be their mouthpiece when necessary.
I believe for the most part, they operate individually and don't give a rats ass about the other teams, until it affects their wallet.
I don't believe we are there. I don't think the NFL worries about legal precedent as it pertains to stadiums.
Teams move for 2 reasons, lousy city support or shady ownership.
Threat of relocation has only come up because of a combination of the two.
So if an owner has his ducks in a row like 90% of them do, the outcome here has nothing to do with them.
And that scares the crap out of me.
I think "the NFL" isn't engaged because as a whole it just doesn't affect them. And what input they are forced to give may be used against them.
It's ambivalence that leads to poor decisions and that's where I see this heading.

Solid . The underscored sentence was my same thought after reading Claytons take.

The perfect scenario we have all been championing is through the eyes of LA Rams fans. It is obviously not perfect for others and we fans obviously don't matter.

So that said, where does the law stand? Are there real legal precedents that would support ESK just going? Would the owners feel compelled to take Kroenke to the wall (Seattle) if he tried?
Your comment about only affecting their wallets could come in to play if ESK threatens to sue. Could this really be coming down to that?

[The Ripper]

The legal definition


The league was formed in 1966 by a union of the American Football League and the National Football League, and it functions as the governing body of a joint venture of thirty two professional football teams producing "NFL football." The teams are independently owned and managed by different business interests. The league is organized through the League Constitution and Bylaws, an agreement among team members that sets out rules for league management of matters such as game rules, game schedules, team ownership, and location of teams. Most decisions affecting the league are made by vote of team representatives at NFL meetings.

[Hacksaw]

Thanks Ripper.
"Most" decisions.

This actionable plan is just the excuse they needed.

[SWAdude]

Viability........

Yes, I want the Rams back in LA because I am and always will be an LA Rams fan. Even when they play their home games in St Louis. I just felt the need to be open about this. Although after much soul searching, I believe I am objective about the issues involving the possibility of the Rams moving to Inglewood. My process is considering the following:

1) Contractually the city of ST Louis was required to provide a top 25% tier NFL stadium. Stan attempted to work with the city but the city would not work with Stan and loss in arbitation.

2) Stan buys land in Inglewood.

3) The city does not attempt to work with Stan to provide a viable alternative.

4) Stan works with other developers adjacent to the land he bought in Inglewood and provides an highly detailed proposal for a new stadium. The stadium gets quick approval by the city waiving environmental reviews and becomes shovel ready. (Trust me, the FAA thing is bogus)

5) "Coincidently", the city of St louis then provides a basic, rough proposal for a river front stadium.

6) "Coincidently" , Spanos and Davis want to go in a partnership for a stadium in Carson on a waste site with no design or hard renderings. Then they quickly change from one design to another. Eventually part of the proposal becomes mute because some of the land is no longer available.

7) The city of St Louis approves 70 million dollars of a 1.1 billion dollar (150 million more than originally proposed) stadium with hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate question.

My thoughts:

Stan has been very quiet for more than just personality reasons. He and the other owners know, he is prepared for the fight. His stadium will pay for itself. The issue is team value. Stan has one to two billion to lose if the league tries to stop him. Spanos certainly doesn't want competition two hours down the road. No owner would. Davis has been luke warm at best with the Carson deal. It appears he can win bigger in Oakland if the Rams move to LA. Sharing a stadium with an historic AFC rival? Nawwwww. Davis would lose a fan base on that alone.

And the most simple of observations, the NFL is not going to approve two relocations at once. Letting the Rams go, help the Raiders stay, and give the Chargers the opportunity to share Inglewood while San Diego secures a viable option is the Win/Win/Win solution.

Dividing NFL ownership will cost the league billions. The league is not a non-profit organization. The Rams move makes them billions.

This has the opportunity to creating a destructive issue with owners or pissing off the small group chanting "Kroenke sucks" on the NFL network after last nights game. Which direction do you think is more probable?

Which scenario do you think is more........viable?

But then again, in only my mind do I think I am being objective.

[The Ripper]

Thanks Ripper.
"Most" decisions.

This actionable plan is just the excuse they needed.

Your welcome.

Most decisions. The commissioner has the right to interrupt and from time to time set policy. The owners could overturn a decision by the commissioner but it would require 24 votes

The other decision that owners don't make is to enter into litigation or not to. The Raiders move back to Oakland wasn't officially approved and Taglibue instead of taking the team to court, sent a letter to the finance committee in support of the move.

[den-the-coach]

Viability........



But then again, in only my mind do I think I am being objective.

Believe me sir many have have been communicating similar thoughts for a long period of time now, however, there seems to be some type of stalemate and the actual "LA Committee" seem to be backing Spanos. Now all of us are hopeful the best plan wins because ESK has that, however, just like in business sometimes companies do not always select the best ideas.

There are certain owners that apparently are okay with making less money as long as they can take care of a friend and control another individual obtaining more power. Keeping Kroenke in St. Louis and controlling him while taking care of a good friend simultaneously might just be the objective of the likes of Richardson, Hunt and Rooney.

[Hacksaw]

If some of these owner are going to try and block ESK for personal reasons not directly adversely affecting them negatively, I truly hope that ESK goes for it. Beat those brats. At least I hope he uses any legal threat or advantage as leverage. Stacking the deck with that committee is all I would need to know that these dudes are not my friends so why should I care what they think of me. It worked for maddame Ram.