Sunday, August 14, 2016

Rams to LA: It Wasn't "Good" Business

From the moment it was announced the rhetoric began. It came from the owners who had voted and lobbied for it. It came from the lawyers on staff at ESPN. It came from the the hall of fame players who spent time on the team. They were all saying the same thing about the St. Louis Rams being moved back to Los Angeles:

"You have to understand the business side of it."

Most would agree, those of us in St. Louis had a right to feel upset, disappointed, and even betrayed. Yet, many insisted it was strictly business. This was the best move for the Rams and the NFL because it meant more money would be made for the League and the team. This meant it was a smart business decision, and an acceptable outcome. Money makes the world go 'round after all.

My daughter and I try to remember the good times the day after the announcement.

I fail to see how we can look at what Stan Kroenke, Roger Goodell, and the rest of the NFL did and write it off as acceptable business practices. I think a lot of Americans would agree (if presented the whole story) it was shady, it was rigged, and it was void of unbiased oversight.
In fact, what we got was not good business sense, but deceit, slander, bribery, manipulation, and greed. Not only does that make for poor business on Kroenke and the NFL's part, but that made it very personal for the people of St. Louis. Not just because we lost our team, but because of what was said about us in order to make it happen. Because of how we were lied to by ownership. Because of how the NFL manipulated the situation. And then because we were told it was just business.

The Lease on the Dome: The Out Clause Stan Needed

In the Rams lease for the Edward Jones Dome there was a provision made, allowing the Rams out of the lease if the Dome was not maintained to rate top 25% among NFL stadiums. In February of 2013, a group of arbitrators ruled the obvious, that the Dome was not meeting the requirements of the lease, and backed the Rams organization in their demands of $700 million in renovations. Additionally, the city was forced to pay $2 million in lawyer fees for the Rams organization. The city was given until the end of the 2014 season to comply, or the Rams would be released from the lease.


Above: The Edwards Jones Dome as is; Below: The Rams remodel plan


There was still about $300 million owed on the Dome, and the city wasn't interested in spending another $700 million to renovate a facility under 20 years old. The renovations would have also closed the facility for three years, costing the city an additional $500 million in revenue. So they gave up on the Dome, and allowed Kroenke's Rams to go into a year to year deal, with the freedom to jet for greener pastures at anytime.

This is the closest thing to any form of evidence supporting the idea that the city of St Louis did not do it's fair share in negotiating with the team in attempting to provide an adequate stadium for the Rams to play in. However, the city didn't decline renovations because they didn't want the team, or expected them to continue in the Dome. Conversation at the time was to begin a plan for a new stadium, allowing the Dome to focus on conventions (which would have increased profits there) and providing a nice place for the team to play elsewhere in the city. Renovations would have had a practically cost of $1.5 billion, so why not just put that towards a more lucrative idea in which everyone wins?

While the city did break the terms of the lease, it should also be noted Kroenke did as well. Months after the arbitration, Kroenke scheduled his team to play a home game in London. The lease (which was still active under the pretense the city had a year to come up with the money) stated the Rams had to play all eight of their home games in the Dome, and not at another site. So the man who had just won a ruling for $700 million dollars or the option to take his team and leave chose to breach the same contract only months later. The Rams did back out of the overseas game, but managed to negotiate one in 2015. The audacity of Kroenke to try and schedule the first game was indicative of his attitude throughout the relocation process. The man has money, and he believes it permits him to do anything he wants.

Kroenke Buys Land in L.A.

The arbitration ruling was February 1st, 2013. On February 1st, 2014, it was confirmed by the NFL that Stan Kroenke had purchased 60 acres in Inglewood on January 13th. A stipulation in the League requires all owners to inform the NFL when they purchase land, regardless of it's intended use. The site in question was originally to be used by Wal-Mart (Kroenke married into the Walton family), but ultimately was deemed as unusable for the their intended purposes, so they auctioned it off.

Publicly, Rams officials denied the land was for a stadium.

Wind the clock back to August 27th, 2013, to a meeting between Kroenke and San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos. During the conversation the two discussed the possibility of a partnership to bring their teams out of their current cities, and tap the market of Los Angeles. During this meeting, Kroenke told Spanos about his 60 acre dream land in Inglewood, and agreed to be in touch with the other owner. Spanos had concerns about traffic and parking, but was open to be convinced. Kroenke, however, moved on and stopped returning his calls.
Without Spanos, Kroenke setup a corporation to buy the land at auction, even outbidding Eric Grubman, an NFL executive who became the point man for the League on the L.A. relocation process, and who appeared (to many involved) to favor Kroenke's plans. No one knows why he was even bidding on the land.

Spanos began looking at other locations, settling on a spot in Carson, but other owners were suggesting everyone involved slow down. The NFL was not happy with how Commissioner Goodell had been handling recent disciplinary issues, and the owners concluded no one would be moving for the 2015 season. But that didn't stop Stan.
On January 5th, 2015, Kroenke announced his stadium project, despite yet having announced intentions to move the team. The man who swore he wouldn't take football out of St. Louis, who was enshrined for bringing it back in the first place, had just made his intentions clear.

Stan Kroenke and Kevin Demoff: The Art of Lying to a Fanbase

Shortly after discovering his dream land in Inglewood, Stan Kroenke raved about it to Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff. Demoff had become the spokesperson for the Rams brass in St Louis, as Kroenke began to earn the nickname, "Silent Stan," for his lack of statements to a confused and frightened fanbase.
Demoff confirmed his conversation with Kroenke during his presentations to the NFL, and again in a speech on March 1st of 2016. During that speech he blamed St. Louis for not performing renovations by the end of the 2014 season, effectively making the Rams a free agent looking for a home. He also talked about how planning the move had been a welcome distraction when the team's starting QB went down with a torn ACL (Sam Bradford, September 2014), and declared a four game losing streak, resulting in the Rams missing the playoffs in the 2015 season, was exactly what they needed to focus on the move.

Demoff was quoted in this last speech as having said the move was, "two and a half years in the making," which is an interesting thing to say (almost as interesting as to say you were glad to be out of the playoffs). Even if you believe it was the fault of the city of St. Louis for not renovating the Dome, Demoff's timeline extends back before the lease was made void. If anything, his timeline proves the arbitration was used with the intent purpose of freeing the team to leave St. Louis all together, rather than to find a way to work with the city for an amicable outcome.

Demoff adresses concerned St. Louis Rams fans about plans for three games in London.


This admission by Demoff blatantly contradicts what he and Kroenke had been telling the fans of St. Louis in the years leading up to the move.

In 2010 Kroenke said, "I'm going to attempt to do everything I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis."
In 2012, Demoff said their focus was on, "building a winner in St Louis, for the near future, and all the way into the year 2032."
In 2013, Demoff addressed rumors of an L.A. move by saying L.A. was a bad market for football, and no one in their right mind would want to move there. In 2016 Demoff would say he, “always dreamed that I could be part of bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles. To think that it happened is really unbelievable.”
At a season ticket holder meeting in 2014, Demoff was asked about the land bought by Kroenke in Inglewood. His response was, “that’s not a piece of land that’s any good for a football stadium. The size and the shape aren’t good for a football stadium.”
Conversely he told the media after the move all about the first time he heard about the land in 2013. “There are moments in your life you never forget. I was standing by the window in my office [in St. Louis] and Stan called. … I remember he said, 'This is an unbelievable site.'”
In June of 2014, Demoff said there was a one in a million chance of the Rams leaving St. Louis for L.A. This was consistent with his downplaying of rumors over the past few seasons, though we all know now it was already in the works.

The documentation of statements made by Kroenke and Demoff over the years makes calling them liars very easy. It's not just sour grapes, it's public record.

St. Louis Proposes a New Stadium

Kroenke had won arbitration, he had bought his land in Inglewood, and now he had announced his plans to build a stadium. A city who had been promised the team had no intentions of leaving were left dumbfounded. If they wanted to keep their team, they would have to act quickly.

March 8th, 2015, the newly formed St Louis Stadium Task Force sends its first tweet: a link to the top ten reasons St Louis needs a new stadium to house the Rams. Headed by the trio of Dave Peacock, Bob Blitz, and John Loyd, the Task Force was established by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to create a pitch for a state of the art facility in St Louis capable of keeping the Rams in town. They set up a plan that would not only build a viable stadium, but that would revitalize the riverfront, and incorporated new uses for the existing dome. Additionally, the plan included the 5th largest amount of public funding ever provided by a city in NFL history.

A new stadium on the riverfront proposed to bring revitalization for the city

In March of 2015, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was optimistic about the new stadium plan.
“They’ve done a really good job of formulating a plan,” Goodell said. “They have a great site. They have a site that I think is important for St. Louis to redevelop.”
“I think it’s a perfect stadium site, as the governor told me,” Goodell continued. “And I think they’re working towards making it a reality. And that’s a positive. The efforts that are going on there are very positive.”
And while those were positive remarks by the Commissioner, he went on to say the following:
“We’re focused on doing this right. If we go back to the Los Angeles market, we want to succeed for the long term. We have a lot to do to get to that place. But we’re not focused on ’16. Right now our focus is on the process, making sure that we’re evaluating the opportunities in the existing markets. And also making sure that we understand what it takes to be successful in the Los Angeles market.”

While St. Louis was making strides, the end game was to have the best opportunity for the NFL to increase it's profits. The message, as it turns out, is it doesn't matter how good the St. Louis stadium is, or what happens in San Diego and Oakland, if Kroenke's plan for relocation turns out to be the most profitable for the League.

The $100 Million Flaw

Working closely with the NFL Relocation Committee, the Stadium Task Force was looking for every possible way to ensure the stadium was well funded. They had already pledged the 5th highest amount of public funding in NFL history, provided tax credits, and solidified naming rights for twenty years from National Car Rental, a deal worth $158 million.
The Task Force then added another $100 million to the plan coming from the NFL, adding to the $200 million the NFL had already said would be available (it's important to note this money was a loan, not a gift from the NFL. It would have to be paid back). In return, the city would give all taxes collected on ticket sales to the team. Not a bad trade.

But, the NFL said no. Strongly. And when I say NFL, I mean Roger Goodell.

Despite the fact it was NFL officials who gave the Task Force the idea to ask for the extra $100 million from the League, Goodell spoke like a disappointed parent, claiming the NFL had no intentions to pay the money, and reprimanding the Task Force for being misleading.
This is was a big sign that the League (I should say Goodell) favored Kroenke's stadium plan for L.A. Not just a week before, Grubman had called a popular St. Louis sports radio show to intentionally disparage fans about the possibility of the Rams staying. He claimed Kroenke didn't have to accept the proposal, which would put St. Louis back at the drawing board.

The hypocrisy of it all showed loud and clear when the relocation vote was finished and both Oakland and San Diego were offered the extra $100 million (totaling $300 million) to build in their home cities. League officials have confirmed that Kroenke would have received the same deal in St. Louis if he had lost the vote, and that it was discussed with the Stadium Task Force as a possibility for their stadium.

“We had said we would consider doing something similar to what we did today (with the Raiders and Chargers) saying the teams would have access to some funds. Not the cities or the states.” Said Robert McNair, Chairman of the NFL finance committee, member of the relocation committee (he voted for Carson), and owner of the Houston Texans.
McNair went on to say, “But that’s up to the membership to vote on that and approve it. None of us can go out and give anybody a guarantee that that’s gonna happen. So that certainly did not help their proposal.”

As it stands, the League technically did vote to allow the extra money for San Diego and Oakland, but not until the Commissioner saw his chances of getting the Rams to L.A. was dwindling. It was added to the final vote to sway Spanos supporters into voting for Inglewood.
There would never have been a vote for St. Louis to be approved, however. As McNair stated, such a deal is not for the city or the state, it's for teams. Better to say, for the owners. Had Kroenke signed on to the plan, then the conversation could have happened. If Carson had been approved and Inglewood failed, it certainly would have been brought up, if Kroneke agreed to stay in St. Louis.

Stan Kroenke Officially Applies for Relocation

On Monday, January 4th, 2016, the St. Louis Rams submitted their application for relocation. Kroenke's reasons for moving came down to one thing: he thought St. Louis was a terrible place to do business, and he didn't hold back in saying so.

In regards to the St. Louis Stadium plan, the application stated, “any NFL Club that signs on to this proposal in St. Louis will be well on the road to financial ruin, and the League will be harmed.”

Speaking of the St. Louis market, “According to the US Mayor’s Report published in 2015, St. Louis is 245th out of 381 cities in projected economic growth, ranking it 29th among NFL
markets.”
And then, “Compared to all other U.S. cities, St. Louis is struggling.”
And,  “St. Louis is not a three professional team market.”

The NFL (Roger Goodell) agreed with Kroenke's representation of St. Louis, and claimed that the cities efforts to keep the team were too little too late, and he had serious concerns about the viability of the stadium plan. So, he approved the team for relocation, allowing the owners to vote on which of the three teams (the Chargers and Raiders were approved too) would get a golden ticket to L.A.

But the Task Force didn't stay silent, and refuted a number of the Rams claims. Kroenke claimed rent would go up 20 times in the new stadium, which would be around $5 million a year, when in fact the rent would be $1.5 Million a year, and was less than what Minnesota and Atlanta were paying on their new deals.
The Rams also claimed it couldn't bring in any new revenue, yet the Task Force countered that the building was theirs to develop said revenue, as the team dictated all programing for it. The Rams claimed that public contribution was $355 million, when in reality it was $400 million, selling the city short in its offer.

The Regional Chamber also responded to the claims of Kroenke and the Rams, regarding the St. Louis economy. They cited that St. Louis is home to the headquarters of six of America's largest companies and 19 fortune 1000 companies. It ranks as the 20th largest U.S. metro area in employment and personal income.
They also pointed out the city had recently been ranked 1st in the world for tech venture capital investment, and one of the best start up cities in America. These statistics, casually left out of the Rams report, paint a different picture about the St. Louis market.

And while attendance was low over the past ten years, before the team went on one of the statistically worst runs in NFL history, the Dome sold out regularly as fans came to see the Greatest Show on Turf. It's a basic mathematical formula that if the product on the field is good, the fans will come and spend money. If the product is bad, they won't. People didn't avoid Rams games because of the age of the Dome, they didn't buy tickets because the team was not improving. That burden is on the owners.

Another interesting claim by Kroenke was that they had been trying to work with the city about the stadium issue since 2002, which is 7 years after they moved in with a thirty year lease. I don't doubt that would have been a hard subject to approach, considering how much was still tied up in public money for the next 23 years. Others might suggest the 2002 date is a ploy, as that is when the Chargers had actually begun ernest conversations with the city of San Diego for a new stadium. As competitors for the L.A. Market, Stan would need to appear as vigilant as his rival had been.

Amidst the whirlwind of the Rams leaving St. Louis, MLS officials have been saying the city would be perfect for an expansion soccer team, despite Kroenke's assertions the town cannot support a third major League team. Even better than this, rumors are now circulating that Alan Bornstein plans to introduce a plan to build a soccer stadium in the St. Louis suburbs. Who is Alan Bornstein? He is a long time business partner of Stan Kroenke, and the lawyer who wrote Kroenke's relocation request trashing the city of St. Louis. Amazing he would want to try to bring another team to St. Louis after vehemently arguing the city wouldn't support it.

Negotiations are a Two Way Street

The NFL picked apart the Task Force proposal, claiming it wasn't viable, and ultimately too little too late. And, as Grubman pointed out, even if the plan was considered viable, Kroenke doesn't have to go for it.
Kroenke's words on the matter were clear as well. He bashed the plan, and accused St. Louis of not doing enough over the years to ensure they would have a quality stadium in the city. But how could the proposal been better? From the NFL's perspective it couldn't be, because it wasn't a $2.2 billion, multifaceted, entertainment palace built in one of the best media markets in the United States. And from Kroenke's perspective it lacked something he wanted as well, which was too be in L.A. where he could make more money.
Assume for a minute that the NFL and Kroenke were not lying when they said St. Louis had a chance to keep the Rams. How could they have built something that would have met Kroenke's standards, and the League's? Easy. Through collaboration.

For the League's part, they did have a relocation committee who worked with the Task Force on what the NFL was capable of doing and what the city would need to provide in return (remember the extra $100 million we couldn't have but San Diego and Oakland could?), but Kroenke never made any attempt to negotiate with the city, or the Task Force, about a new stadium deal.

St. Louis was trying to make things work. Kroenke, however, wasn't listening. So, in January of 2015, the city decided to work directly with the NFL on stadium plans, leaving the door open for Kroenke to join the conversation.

"He hasn't responded, he hasn't called back, he hasn't done anything," said Maggie Crane, the spokeswoman of St. Louis Mayor, Francis Slay.
Slay himself, in a statement after the Rams filed to move in January of 2016, said, “I have been Mayor of St. Louis since then (2002) and I — to this day– cannot ever remember meeting Stan Kroenke, much less engaging with him in any conversations about the future of NFL football in St. Louis.”

On October 27th, 2015, the NFL held a town hall meeting in St. Louis regarding the potential move, as is required by the League's relocation guidelines and bylaws. Hosted by Eric Grubman (again, who many believe to have favored Kroenke's plan for a long time), Rams fans and media personalities took turns letting the NFL official know about their disgust of "Silent" Stan Kroenke, who is never seen at Rams Park, at games, or doing anything in the community like the owners of other sports franchises in St. Louis. They let him know how disappointed they were that Stan would not talk to the city, or the Task Force, about a possible stadium in St. Louis.

Interestingly enough, Stan broke his silence a month later (sort of), meeting with Governor Jay Nixon on November 30th, 2015. The reason for the meeting was so Kroenke could get a, “complete understanding of things," claimed at least one source.
No one knows if he ever did get that understanding, or what else was said at that meeting, as it was very private, and even the Task Force was not allowed to attend. A strange sentiment considering the point was to discuss the St. Louis stadium situation.

But why meet St. Louis officials about a stadium now? The only logical answer is because Stan needed to in order to appease the League. Many believe the meeting was simply to appear to follow NFL relocation guidelines requiring the team to work with the city in good faith. A month prior the League got a very public earful about how Stan was not doing this. The simple solution: have a brief meeting to hear about the stadium, and never return to the table.

Had Stan worked with St. Louis towards a new stadium the way he had worked toward one in L.A. then we would not be having this conversation. Kroenke didn't work with the city of St. Louis, because he didn't want to be there.

What's the Value of a Committee Recommendation?

Before the League would meet to vote on what team/s could move to L.A. they appointed a committee of six owners to review the plans and make a formal suggestions as to which stadium idea would be best. Would it be Carson (Chargers/Raiders) or Inglewood (Rams)?

The committee was near unanimous in a 5-1 vote, choosing the Carson stadium as the right move by the NFL.

This was big news for St. Louis Rams fans. The League never goes against a committee vote. Never.
“Again, in all my years in that meeting room,” said Amy Trask, a former Raiders executive, “I can count on one hand, with fingers to spare, the numbers of times the membership as a whole did not endorse the recommendation of a committee.”

Not only did the owners go against the committee vote, many (if not all) of the committee members even swapped their vote in the end, when Inglewood won by a vote of 30-2. We don't even know who those two dissenters are (though we assume they are Spanos and Mark Davis of the Chargers and Raiders) because the vote was done anonymously.

“In the almost 30 years I was behind those doors at those meetings, the only instances in which I recall the use of the secret ballot were the selection of the commissioner and the selection of Super Bowl sites,” said Trask. “It was tremendously significant. And also somewhat surprising.”

Going into the meetings, Spanos felt he had lined up at least 20 votes in his favor, only to lose the first vote (after it became a secret ballot) 21-11 in favor of Inglewood. It turned out the owners actually liked Kroenke's stadium plan better than the Carson proposal, which was backed by Disney man Bob Iger.
In truth, it seems the owners Spanos had on his side were not there because of his stadium plan, but because they felt they owed him for being such a good owner and team player for the League. They wanted to do right by him, but Inglewood promised more money.

Trumpeting that idea was the usually quiet Paul Allen (of the Seattle Seahawks), who urged the other owners to vote for the best stadium, not out of loyalty to any individual.

The City of Champions Stadium will be a beautiful site, as the video shows

But 21-11 was not enough to pass the Inglewood site, and the other owners had been clear they wanted Kroenke to allow Spanos and the Chargers to share occupancy if he won the vote. This was one point that had made Spanos backers upset, as Kroenke approached the concept as treating his fellow owner like a tenant, rather than as a partner. To make this work, more votes needed to be gained, which meant Spanos and Davis needed to be convinced.

Enter the Commissioner.

Goodell, Grubman, Spanos, Davis, and the Committee owners sat down to discuss the inevitable. Eventually, a deal was made. Spanos would have one year to determine if he wanted to move to L.A. with Kroenke and the Rams. If he turned it down, Davis would be given the same consideration. If either team wanted to build in their home cities, the League would offer them an additional $100 million on top of the standard $200 million loan the NFL provides for stadium construction (and as discussed before, could only be offered to a willing owner, not a city directly, according to Robert McNair).

When they sat down again the vote was nearly unanimous, going 30-2 in favor of Inglewood.

What About Bylaws and Relocation Guidelines?

"Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community."

This quote is from the NFL's Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations. The reason for this guidelines existence is to prevent owners from arbitrarily moving when it meets their needs, leaving their cities to pick up the check on anything left behind. It continues:

"If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations."

The key words and phrases in these articles are, "good faith," "maximize fan support in their current home community," "diligently engaged," and, "reached a stalemate."

Good Faith, based on the latin bona fides, is considered fair and open dealings in human interactions. It requires sincere and honest intentions. Did the timeline of Kevin Demoff quotes prove honesty? Would you describe Stan Kroenke and Rams officials as open in their dealings with St. Louis? What was their ultimate goal in those years leading up to the move? Was it to find a viable stadium solution in St. Louis as the guideline requires? Or was it to find viable justification to move to L.A.?

What exactly were the Rams doing to, "maximize home support," during these contentious years? They put up one of the worst records of the past decade, but cited attendance during that decade as reason to relocate. To get a better look at how the team approached their mediocrity, lets look at their hiring practices with head coaches. These are the men held responsible for team records across all major sports, and the tendency of the Rams could shed light on how much the owner wanted a true winner in St. Louis.
Starting the miserable years was Scott Lineman, who coached for two and half years from 2006 to 2008, finishing 11-25 overall. He was fired four games into the 2008 season.
Jim Haslett took over and went 2-10. He was not brough back.
Steve Spagnuolo coached from 2009 to 2011, going 10-38 in his tenure.
Jeff Fisher took over in 2012, and is still the head coach going into the 2016 season. His current record with the team is 27-36-1, which is an improvement from the previous coaches, but still not a winning season to speak of. Despite his inability to have a winning season, he heads into his fifth year as the head coach, which is twice as long as his predecessors were given. The team is expected to offer him a contract extension this year despite still not having a winning season.
But why extend a coach who is ten losses away from becoming the most losing coach in history?

Both the HC and DC of the Rams had experience with relocation

Some would suggest Jeff Fisher was kept around not because of his coaching prowess, but because of his experience in relocating teams. He coached the Houston Oilers when they relocated to Tennessee, and was still the coach of the Titans when they moved cities within the state.
The support for this theory is how this historically average coach has kept his job where his predecessors did not. In the history of the NFL you won't find many coaches with four consecutive losing seasons negotiating a contract extension. He was also hired during the period of arbitration, which if you believe Kroenke's goal of arbitration was to free his team from the shackles of St. Louis, hiring Fisher very much meets the narrative. We also found out that Fisher had knowledge of the intent to move the team, while denying it vehemently during his tenure in St. Louis. He could easily have been in on it from the first day he put on the blue and gold. He also has L.A. experience having grown up in the San Fernando Valley, and he played college ball at USC. Team officials saw this as a plus.
Couple this with Demoff's comments about missing the playoffs in 2015, and you have an ownership that isn't terribly concerned with winning football games. If that statement is true, than how can you say they have operated in good faith to improve fan support when they were trading a losing record for a coach with relocation experience?

The definition of the word diligent, as listed at dictionary.com, is, "constant in effort to accomplish something; attentive and persistent in doing anything: done or pursued with persevering attention; painstaking."
The word engaged is defined, "busy or occupied; involved: under engagement; pledged."
Would you call Stan Kroenke's attempts to negotiate with St. Louis as, "diligently engaged," or as showing, "constant effort?" Would you describe him as being, "involved," when it came to being in St. Louis? Did he show, "persevering attention," in his efforts to stay in St. Louis?
If you answered yes to these questions, I would have to ask you to show your evidence. The only plan Kroenke and Demoff were diligent in executing was one to move the Rams to L.A.

Perhaps they were so motivated to move because they had reached a stalemate in negotiations in St. Louis. Only, for that to be the case they would have to have first negotiated with St. Louis. Remember, the Mayor cannot even recall a time he ever spoke with Kroenke, and Kroenke only ever sat down with the Governor after the NFL town hall revealed he was a silent figure in the city.
There was no stalemate, as there was no intent to negotiate.

Of course, the League saw it otherwise. As stated above, they disagreed with the terms of the new St. Louis Stadium (including the parameters they encouraged to be added), felt Kroenke acted in good faith during his solitary meeting with state Governor Jay Nixon (six weeks before the relocation was decided), and blamed St. Louis for not getting a better deal in place, or improving the existing dome.
In return, the League received a healthy relocation fee paid by Kroenke, posh new offices in L.A., and potential increase in revenue by being in a larger market.
It will also be a great place to hold swanky events like the Super Bowl. It was announced the Inglewood site would host the 2021 Super Bowl, which is sure to do bank for the League.

When you consider the League's actions in the matter, it's easy to assume they were in on it from the beginning. They get a lot out of the relocation, so it makes sense to ensure the deal goes through. If you're not convinced yet, consider this: Kroenke announced plans to build a stadium on January 5th, 2015. On May 4th, 2015, it was reported that the League's official website was changed display the team (still in St. Louis) as the Los Angeles Rams.

Someone (employed by the NFL) had to actively go in and change it, almost a year before the move was final, and during a time Roger Goodell was assuring St. Louis fans that we were on the right track to keeping our team.
Since relocating the NFL has continued to try and put distance between itself and St. Louis, only increasing the feeling it wanted the team out of Missouri. When Orlando Pace made his Hall of Fame speech, the NFL edited the video to remove all mention of St. Louis, the former tackle's now home. No other speeches were edited, and the NFL unedited their video after being called on it, citing technical issues.

It's actions like these that continue to perpetuate the idea that the League was set against St. Louis from the beginning, giving Kroenke a willing accomplice in moving the team back to Los Angeles.

Low Attendance in St. Louis

A fair point to make regarding the Rams tenure in St. Louis is the low attendance numbers over the last decade. As the idea of the Rams returning to L.A. became more and more of a reality, St. Louis fans became more and more vocal about their passion for the team. However, if they were so passionate, why didn't they buy tickets?

From the time the Rams arrived in St. Louis (1995 season) and through the end of the 2006 season, the Rams sold out 95 consecutive home games (regular season), and an additional five playoff games. This accounts for twelve consecutive seasons, during which the team record was 100-92. They had a win percentage of .520, made all five of their playoff appearances, had their only four winning seasons in their 21 years in St. louis, made two Super Bowl appearances, and had one Super Bowl win.
In 2007 the team started 0-8, and finished 3-13. During this time the dome averaged at 98% capacity. Despite the poor record, and being four years removed from their last winning season, fans continued to buy tickets. Without selling out all of the home games, the Rams ranked 24th in the NFL for attendance that year.
Now consider this: the year before (2006) the Rams averaged at 100% capacity per home game, but only ranked 23rd, one spot higher. Here are some of the teams ranked ahead of the Rams that did not reach 100% capacity average for the season, and their overall records:
#3. The New York Jets at 97% (4-12)
#4 The Kansas City Chiefs at 96% (4-12)
#9 The Buffalo Bills at 97% (7-9)
#12 The New Orleans Saints at 96% (7-9)
#15 The Atlanta Falcons at 96% (4-12)
#18 The San Francisco 49ers at 97% (5-11)
#20 The San Diego Chargers at 91% (11-5)
#22 The Jacksonville Jaguars at 97% (11-5)

That's seven teams who could not fill their stadiums, but the NFL considers to have better attendance.

The statistics are clear, the city of St. Louis did support the Rams. Twelve sellout seasons, one season at 98% capacity, all during a stretch in which the team had only four winning records. At some point, the Rams failed to ignite the imagination of the city. There was no longer a belief that the team could win, and the fans were content to watch from home, and check their ESPN app for the scores, until the team could convince them it was worth shelling out the money for a ticket. For eight seasons they waited for a good product after paying for a subpar one for nine of the past thirteen years, only to be told they're not good enough fans to have a football team.

As Kroenke claims, they're baseball fans, nothing more.

Rather than use the Cardinals as an excuse to move his Rams, perhaps Kroenke should have taken note on how a small market team can rally an entire a city around a culture of winning, and doing things the right way.
It doesn't hurt that baseball tickets are exponentially cheaper than trying to attend an NFL game. You can often take the whole family to a baseball game for the price of one ticket to a football game.

Yes, less people were buying tickets over the final nine seasons the Rams were in St. Louis, but that is normal when a team is losing and the ownership is doing nothing to engage the city. If it proves anything, it's only that small markets don't get the same benefit of the doubt when they cannot sell out their stadiums.

Did St. Louis Ever Have a Chance?

Many owners and League officials have said St. Louis did have a chance to keep the Rams. Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys, friend of Stan Kroenke, and major supporter of moving the Rams to Los Angeles, has made several statements regarding the subject.

“St. Louis, it’s not a vote against the city and the beautiful people in St. Louis,” he said. “The statement (to St. Louis) says: Let’s get it better. Let’s do it better. And let’s have an NFL team in St. Louis. Which is certainly an NFL town without question. Let me make that real clear — it’s an NFL town all the way.”

When pressed that the city never had a chance to keep the team, Jones responded, “That’s not right.” He even suggested the NFL could return to St. Louis.
“It can happen. Let me tell you right now, it can happen. They’ve got great leadership in Missouri — a great state."
McNair had similar thoughts on the NFl returning to St. Louis. “I think they should keep trying,” he said. “Hopefully they can improve their situation and attract someone. I think the market is still there, but the stadium proposal just didn’t meet the standards that the Rams felt they could live with.”

Not that current state and city leadership want to NFL to return at this point, but is this supposed to be some consolation? On a side note, compare what Jones and McNair are saying to what Kroenke claimed in his declaration of intent to relocate. Kroenke says St. Louis cannot support the NFL, but his friend and supporter in Jones states otherwise. McNair says there is a market here and cites the stadium plan (that Kroenke never even bothered to look at, negotiate on, or discuss with the Task Force) just wasn't quite right for the team. So which is it? What is the reasoning for the Rams being allowed to leave? Is it St. Louis is a terrible place for the NFL as the Rams assert, or is it that the stadium plan isn't good enough despite being similar to plans in Minnesota and Atlanta? But I digress...

Going back to if St. Louis ever really had a chance to keep the team, despite what Jones said on the subject directly, listen to what he said about the Rams going back to L.A.
“But for the NFL, the neatest, best thing that we could have done was to have Stan Kroenke lead the Rams back to the Los Angeles Rams, and all that great tradition. With absolutely the greatest plan that has ever been conceived in sports.”

I must ask, if Stan Kroenke had conceived, "the greatest plan ever... in sports," and the best thing was for him to, "lead the Rams back to the Los Angeles Rams," then where did Jones see the opportunity to keep the Rams in St. Louis? He also said:

“Stan is a tremendous asset for the NFL. He’s God-sent really. He gave us, and is giving us the opportunity with this great project, to do what we need to do in Los Angeles. It’s such a natural to have the Los Angeles Rams be in Los Angeles.”

Again, if God sent Stan to the NFL for this one moment, when did the city of St. Louis ever have a chance to keep the team? According to Jones, this plan was divinely ordained to happen, as if all the stars came into alignment for this singular destiny.
We can see he loved Kroenke's plan, but what did Jones think of the Task Force plan?

“I have no thoughts. None whatsoever.”

He had no opinion on the city's plan, he praised Goodell's leadership in the decision, claimed Kroenke was a gift of God, and saw no better plan ever executed than this one to move the Rams to L.A. in the history of sports. Where was the opportunity to keep the team?

Let me tell you the only possible answer to that question. The only chance the Rams had to stay in St. Louis came down to two scenarios.

1. When the Rams took the city to arbitration several years before, the city could have agreed to the $700 million in renovations. As stated previously, this would have been a $1.5 billion price tag to the city, which is more than the Task Force plan to simply build a new stadium, and would have been finished with only nine years left on the current lease.
2. Relocation would have had to have gone decidedly different. Spanos and Iger would have had to put together a better plan for Carson, wooing more NFL owners to the idea of the Chargers moving back to L.A. and bringing the Raiders with them. If this had happened, Kroenke would have been the owner left out of the race to L.A. and would have to figure out his next move. This could have led him back to St. Louis to actually negotiate a new stadium plan in earnest, though it would have been rough going after burning so many bridges.

Short of the city coming up with $2.2 billion dollars of their own to build a mega-center in St. Louis, that had potential to draw all sorts of revenue in a small market, these were the only two possibilities to keep the Rams in town.

Maybe there was a chance, but it was never evident the city would need to act in such a way to figure out how to keep the team. Silent Stan held all his cards to his chest, not giving the city an opportunity to come to a solution that worked for both parties, nor providing any ultimatum. The moment he decided to move the team it was over.

Look at the Business Side

When someone says, "you have to understand the business side of it," it should now be understood that this is code for, "this way the NFL makes more money."

But is that what we think business is? All about making money?

When you read the relocation guidelines you can see it. The League will consider whether or not a move to a new city will reduce overall income as criteria to approve the move. The NFL wants to make more money. Period.
And we shouldn't begrudge companies for wanting to improve profits. I don't. I'm all for a free market, which is what we saw here in St. Louis with the Rams. The market decides if the product is worth the cost, and the city decided it wasn't. That's why we didn't go to the games, as the product was not worth the cost.
Where I do find a problem is when companies blame the consumer for not buying their poor products. It's not our fault you can't sell us on what you're offering.

This is what the Rams did. This is what Kroenke did, and the NFL went along with it. Why? Because if they could say Kroenke had done his due diligence with the city of St. Louis, then they could approve him moving to L.A. to give the League more money. Roger Goodell could also improve his image, becoming the Commissioner who brought professional football back to Los Angeles.

In order to appease the language of the bylaws, the Rams had to lie about the support they had received, lie about their intentions to move the team, and attend a singular meeting with city officials two months before they were approved to move.
In return, the NFL had to discredit the St. Louis Stadium Task Force, lay blame on the city, and leave two other teams in the cold (the Raiders still don't have a stadium, sharing with the Athletics baseball team).

There was no good faith with the Rams or the NFL. There was no attempt to maximize fan support in St. Louis. There was nothing but the misconstruing of a fan base and a city, all to serve the purpose of making more money for the League.

The business aspects of this move were, at best, unethical, and at worst, criminal. Even now, former fans are suing the team over issues with PSLs, and how they transfer to L.A., though it won't go anywhere, as language in the contracts allowed for this scenario.
But imagine if you will, a situation in which a business partner of yours approaches you with a deal. The only thing you need to do to make it work is to be misleading with your statements to your customers, lie about certain aspects of the nature of your business, reinterpret your bylaws and regulations to benefit your plan, and then burn the bridge to your current consumer base by blaming them for your choice to change your business model. In the end you get a lot more money. What would you do? Would you compromise your ethics to make more money?

It's easy to say, "it's just business," but it's not. It's very personal to be told you didn't do enough to keep your team, to be misconstrued as a fan base to the rest of the nation, all so that billionaires can make a few more bucks. And it's all done to you by a League who claims the slogan, "Football is Family."

They want you to buy that they are invested in communities, but they prove over and over that they are not. Not just with how they treated St. Louis, but with how they hold cities hostage to fund stadiums with tax dollars, despite having enough cash to fund it all themselves. Even the players struggle with the idea of the world's richest men forcing tax payers to take the bill for these exorbitant stadiums.

But I hope St. Louis was a lesson to other cities trying to keep a team, or lure one to them (looking at you Las Vegas). Kroenke proved the owners can find a way to build stadiums beyond what the public can, and the NFL proved they will find a way to go where they will make the most money. No city should shell out millions and billions of tax payer dollars to buy loyalty from a wealthy owner or the NFL.

Don't fool yourself. There is no fan loyalty, only loyalty to the almighty dollar.

Addressing L.A.

There is no doubt that Los Angeles is a great sports town with storied teams and lots of history. There is no doubt the fans there support their teams as much as anyone else. There is no doubt that the Rams have a long relationship with the area, and the fans are happy to see them come back.

In short, there is nothing wrong with L.A.

I'm happy for NFL fans in L.A. that get a chance to root for a pro team again. For some, it's welcoming home the team of their childhood, and I respect that. Belittling L.A. has not been the point of this article. The point is simple:

There is nothing wrong with St. Louis either.



Links and Resources

Here are all the links I used during the research of this post. I recommend reading The Wow Factor on ESPN before anything else. It gives great insight on what happened leading up to the decision, and how the owners behaved during the meeting. It is very, very good.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles

Most of these links are already included above, but some may not have been referenced yet. If you really want to understand what is wrong with the NFL and this relocation, I suggest you do the work and read up on it yourself.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/05/24/new-los-angeles-stadium-gets-super-bowl-lv-in-2021/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0105-nfl-la-stadium-20150105-story.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/the-nfl-s-official-website-already-has-a--los-angeles-rams--page-181222894.html

http://usuncut.com/class-war/richard-sherman-billionaires-stadiums/

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/stan-kroenke-rams-move-to-los-angeles-workers-compensation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/01/06/rams-owners-application-to-relocate-to-los-angeles-just-crushes-st-louis/

https://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/wall-street-journal-st-louis-is-the-top-sports-city-in-2015/

http://www.kmov.com/story/29978963/st-louis-deemed-a-top-10-city-for-sports-fans

https://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/footballstadium/nflfranchiserelocationrules.pdf

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rams-702969-goodell-nfl.html

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-stadium-20160110-story.html

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12133304/city-leaders-say-st-louis-rams-owner-return-our-calls

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_de93465b-0da2-52a2-b578-719eec790533.html

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/07/st-louis-mayor-fires-back-at-kroenke/

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/intrigue-at-rams-park-kroenke-meets-with-nixon/article_e6b254b6-563e-5176-b29d-e51fb10579ad.html

http://www.101sports.com/2015/10/27/randy-karraker-addresses-nfl-town-hall-relocation-panel/

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2015/10/28/9626420/st-louis-rams-town-hall-relocation-notes-recap-los-angeles

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/12/rams-last-home-game-in-st-louis-no-joe-buck-says.html

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2705298

http://www.101sports.com/2016/01/06/kroenkes-relocation-application-troll-job-backfire/

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/01/19/mls-commissioner-don-garber-talks-st-louis-expansion-sports-illustrated

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/14/st-louis-rams-nfl-london

https://nextstl.com/2013/02/arbitration-panel-has-ruled-in-favor-of-ram-s-stadium-proposal/

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/rams-owner-stan-kroenke-buys-60-acres-in-los-angeles/

http://www.kmov.com/story/30909269/mayor-slay-writes-to-nfl-regarding-inaccuracies-in-relocation-application

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/goodell-million-for-st-louis-stadium-fundamentally-inconsistent-with-nfl/article_1c529334-4e3f-5885-9f68-156184f56ad8.html

http://www.101sports.com/podcasts/eric-grubman-joins-bernie-to-talk-about-the-ongoing-la-stl-situation/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-tick-tock-20160117-story.html

https://archauthority.com/2016/01/13/kevin-demoff-shows-that-even-fan-friendly-executives-cant-be-trusted/

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/nfl-owners-thrilled-by-kroenke-s-move/article_09762b03-a87e-5c6b-a9fa-250bb46450ae.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/sports/football/st-louis-should-be-glad-it-lost-the-rams.html?_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-moving-rams-fisher-20160801-snap-story.html

http://www.stltoday.com/online/how-much-did-jeff-fisher-know/article_2c6a5f31-d93c-5525-86f0-4f65160db465.html

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/7-stats-that-prove-how-wonderfully-average-jeff-fishers-head-coaching-record-is

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/13/contract-extensions-expected-for-jeff-fisher-les-snead/

https://archauthority.com/2016/08/07/nfl-edits-out-references-to-st-louis-in-web-version-of-orlando-pace-hall-of-fame-speech/

No comments:

Post a Comment