NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Exe Gesis]

Stuff like ...

LA got screwed by StL when they stole the Rams, a new glittering stadium as carrot. So fair is fair that LA screwed StL back.

Why is StL moaning about the Rams, they didnt care about the Cardinals leaving for Arizona.

Whilst StL failed the Rams in the Edward Jones Dome situation, gave the Rams a way out of the lease, the city did agree to a sparkling new stadium in StL, the NFL just said no thanks, and moved the franchise to LA. Not honest with StL, just waiting for the terms of the EJ dome to fail so they had an out to LA, and increase worth of franchise.

Etc

 

[drd23]

Good discussion thread....

I haven't found much good discussion on the actual case in that thread. Besides the multitude of "* Kronke" type posts, the biggest discussion are about whether the new Bank of America Stadium in Minneapolis was a good deal for the city and (somewhat bizarrely) why Dean Spanos was justified in moving the Chargers

 

[Exe Gesis]

I haven't found much good discussion on the actual case in that thread. Besides the multitude of "fu** Kronke" type posts, the biggest discussion are about whether the new Bank of America Stadium in Minneapolis was a good deal for the city and (somewhat bizarrely) why Dean Spanos was justified in moving the Chargers

Good/discussion more in the fan side of things, how LA fans arent grieving for StL fans given their team was stolen in the first place, or a few tidbits about the Edward Jones situation....such things.

Actual good legal diacussions about the case, more in the twitter feed, when it grows, or if you can find an actual article that discusses the legal battle in depth...which would bw difficult to find given it hasnt really happened yet

 

[Exe Gesis]

Judge accuses owners who failed to timely disclose financial information of playing “three-card monte”

Posted by Mike Florio on October 13, 2021, 8:01 PM EDT

The NFL keeps taking L’s in St. Louis.
On Wednesday, Judge Christopher McGraugh issued $24,000 in fines and imposed $25,000 in legal fees over the failure of multiple owners to fully disclose financial information, as previously ordered.

“It does seem to me that your clients . . . are dragging their feet on this,” Judge McGraugh said, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It seems like we’re in a three-card monte game.”

The judge fined Chiefs owner Clark Hunt $5,000, New York Giants co-owner John Mara $8,000, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones $6,000, and Patriots owner Robert Kraft $5,000 for not making complete disclosures in compliance with the court order. Judge McGraugh ruled in July that sufficient evidence existed as to those persons and Rams owner Stan Kroenke to support an award of punitive damages. That makes their financial situation relevant, and their financial information subject to disclosure.

Kroenke fully complied with the order.
As to the others, that’s not the end of it. On December 3, the lawyers for those four owners will return to court with an opportunity to “show cause” as to why they should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order to release the information.

The plaintiffs had tried for more than that. They wanted an order striking the pleadings and entering judgment against those owners, with the trial then focusing only on damages. The judge did not go that far, obviously.
Maybe, at some point, he will.

“This behavior just cannot go on,” Judge McGraugh said.

If it does, stronger sanctions could be coming.

 

[Jatz]

Oh yes, those fines will really deter those owners...

 

[J Shuttlesworth]

Oh yes, those fines will really deter those owners...

Hah yeah, I get they are probably set amounts or something but the finance team aren't even going to need to bother anyone to process those, that's for sure.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Oh yes, those fines will really deter those owners...

They grabbed that loose change out of the ashtray in their cars to pay for it.

 

[Chewy316]

Everyone knows that Kroenke did not act in good faith when he moved the Rams to LA. And you can bet your ass there will be evidence (dare I say in e-mails and memos) that confirm this. The NFL do not want this to end up in a trial with Goodell, Kroenke etc in the witness box. They will pay STL to go away. Dare I say, we could very well see an assurance that they will get the 33rd franchise in the league once the league inevitably expands within the next 20 years.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I say expand by 4 teams

2 conferences,
3 divisions per conference
6 teams per division

Where do you put the 4 new teams, hmmmm.
St Louis is obvious
London is obvious
Chicago #2 (I think if they're expanding, this is a very good chance as whoever will fund new stadium will throw more money at it for nfl every week. Sure, they'll relocate down the line, but short term, Chicago #2 I think will happen if they go towards 36)
Portland (Other cities make sense in one way or another, but vested interests will block it. Ie, Jerry would block SA and OKC, multitude of Fl owners would block Orlando, NFL wouldn't want Toronto to cannibilise Buffalo etc. etc. Which means Portland is the last one standing)

NFC West - Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles (Rams), Arizona, New Orleans, St Louis
AFC West - Las Vegas, Los Angeles (Chargers), Kansas City, Denver, Houston, Portland
NFC East - Washington, Philadelphia, New York (Giants), Dallas, Tampa Bay, Atlanta
AFC East - New England, New York (Jets), Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, Indianapolis
NFC Central - Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago (Bears), Jacksonville, Carolina
AFC Central - Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago (#2), London

Or maybe (I prefer the 1st option, however, I'm not sure I like moving a team from one conference to another, so maybe do this instead)

NFC West - Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles (Rams), Arizona, Portland , St Louis
AFC West - Las Vegas, Los Angeles (Chargers), Kansas City, Denver, Houston, Chicago (#2)
NFC East - Washington, Philadelphia, New York (Giants), Dallas, Tampa Bay, Carolina
AFC East - New England, New York (Jets), Miami, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Indianapolis
NFC Central - Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago (Bears), New Orleans, Atlanta
AFC Central - Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Tennessee, London

 

[Exe Gesis]

How would you do it if the four teams were....

St Louis
San Diego
Chicago 2
Portland (or other new region, not Texas)

 

[Dirty Bird]

NFC West - Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles (Rams), Arizona, St Louis, Portland
AFC West - Las Vegas, Los Angeles (Chargers), Kansas City, Denver, Houston, San Diego
NFC East - Washington, Philadelphia, New York (Giants), Dallas. New Orleans, Atlanta
AFC East - New England, New York (Jets), Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, Jacksonville
NFC Central - Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago (Bears), Tampa Bay, Carolina
AFC Central - Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago (#2), Indianapolis

Ripping up the Southern divisions seems the most logical (AFC South the worst division rivalry wise in the league, then you look at the NFC, you cant rip up the East or North, and it'd be lunacy to rip up the West, so South it is)

When I look at the NFC - none of the NFC South feel logical to send out West (I know, I know, Saints/Falcons/Buccaneers have been in the past, but yeah, nah). I view it as 2 expansion into NFC West, then the Falcons-Saints are a tandem pair (best rivalry in the league imo) and it leaves the Buccaneers/Panthers together too. If Dallas wern't in the East, I would honestly place the Saints/Falcons in Central as it seems logical for the Saints and Panthers/Buccaneers in East, however, the Saints-Cowboys have a natural rivalry which would explode as a divisional game. So the Saints-Cowboys sends the Saints-Falcons to the East and Panthers-Buccaneers to the Central

I then look at the AFC. Houston can go West, with one of the Western expansion franchises. Chicago #2 goes Central as it's well placed with the teams already there. It then just comes down to Titans, Jaguars or Colts to go Central. They're interchangeable tbh. Do you give Miami a local rival? Do you keep the Florida teams sperate to give a 3rd division the luxury of a December game in Florida? Do you go back to the 2000s rivalry of Colts-Patriots? Do you pull on the Colts ditching Baltimore to create an Indy-Baltimore rivalry? I ended up going with the Baltimore-Indianapolis thread, while hoping Miami-Jacksonville can grow, while also keeping Jags-Titans as an annual TNF game (What has it been 5 of the last 8 seasons? Keep it going )

 

[Dirty Bird]

Looking at London, I'd prefer to place them in AFC North.
Yeah, 3/4 AFC East trips are shorter, but that Miami one stands out so much
And if you expand, and contract divisions, placing the COlts in that division makes even more sense.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Thatd be such a cool rivalry - Chargers vs San Diego.

 

[Exe Gesis]

London surely NFC East

 

[Dirty Bird]

London surely NFC East

Firstly, good luck convincing Jerry to go there yearly (though, doable if you point out merchandise) secondly, That extra thousand mile trip every year? You reduce it as much as possible and that's what the AFC North/Central is.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I know I've said it before (Dont ask me where), but I feel game #17 should be neutral every year

London, Munich, Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Mexico City, Rio Di Janerio etc.

Something like this.

49ers-Bengals - Tokyo
Seahawks-Steelers - Shanghai
Rams-Ravens - Mexico City
Cardinals-Browns - Sydney
Buccaneers-Colts - London
Saints-Titans - Munich
Panthers-Texans - Rio Di Janerio
Falcons-Jaguars - London
Vikings-Chargers - Stockholm
Lions-Broncos - Madrid
Packers-Chiefs - London
Bears-Raiders - Hong Kong
Football Team-Bills - Paris
Giants-Dolphins - Moscow
Eagles-Jets - Buenos Aires
Cowboys-Patriots - London

 

[Exe Gesis]

If it was up to me, id just make divisions truly regional (the East divisions bug me so much)

 

[Exe Gesis]

East and South

 

[Exe Gesis]

Stan Kroenke begins backing away from relocation indemnity agreement

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 2:05 PM EDT

St. Louis may be moving closer to a potential expansion team, if it wants one.
Earlier this month, we outlined the factors that could result in the league throwing up its hands and accepting defeat in the Rams relocation litigation. One key ingredient to that specific outcome will be Rams owner Stan Kroenke successfully reneging on his promise to foot the full bill for the lawsuit and judgment, if any.

“Although Rams owner Stan Kroenke has agreed to indemnify the rest of the league for whatever the verdict may be — and although the lawyers have told the other owners that the indemnity commitment is ironclad — there’s a concern that the eventual judgment in the case could be big enough to get Kroenke to try not to honor it,” we wrote on October 9.

As explained by Seth Wickersham of ESPN.com, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash informed the owners on Tuesday (after Kroenke was asked to leave the room) that Kroenke is challenging the indemnity agreement that he signed when receiving permission to move in 2016. Giants co-owner John Mara reportedly called Kroenke’s position “ridiculous,” explaining that the owners never would have voted to authorize the move from St. Louis to L.A. without the indemnity agreement.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who has long supported Kroenke’s L.A. move (and whose Legends Hospitality has profited from the relocation), defended Kroenke. Jones blamed the league’s current legal peril on the fact that the sworn deposition given by an unidentified owner was “shaky.”

Kroenke reportedly blames the current legal issues on the competing proposal to build a Carson stadium for the Raiders and Chargers. The Carson proposal supposedly outlined the various ways that allowing the Rams to move to Inglewood would violate the terms of the league’s relocation policy. Kroenke believes that proposal provided a blueprint for the St. Louis suit.

Jones reportedly said that Kroenke may sue over the indemnification agreement. If Kroenke prevails, the league will be on the hook for the outcome of the St. Louis litigation. And that will raise the chances dramatically of the league offering St. Louis an expansion team as part of a settlement.

 

[Exe Gesis]

NFL braces for billion-dollar exposure in St. Louis litigation

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 6:54 PM EDT

From time to time, it’s been suggested that the litigation over the relocation of the Rams could result in at least $1 billion flowing from the NFL to St. Louis. It could be a lot more than that.

The article from Seth Wickersham of ESPN.com detailing Tuesday’s meeting among owners regarding the possibility that Rams owner Stan Kroenke will renege on his commitment to pay the full bill for the case includes two paragraphs that justify significant attention and scrutiny.

As Wickersham explains it, the discussion included an exchange between NFL general counsel Jeff Pash and Cowboys owner (and Kroenke supporter) Jerry Jones regarding potential settlement of the case.

Jones asked Pash if Kroenke had tried to settle the case. Pash said that Kroenke has tried.

Here’s the key portion of Wickersham’s article, regarding what came next: “Jones indicated that Kroenke’s settlement figure was billions of dollars. Pash refused to confirm the figure — a source with direct knowledge of the situation told ESPN it was less than a billion — but told those in the meeting that it was more than the net worth of some in the room.”

It’s not entirely clear whether that’s the amount the St. Louis plaintiffs had demanded, the amount Kroenke already had offered, or the amount Kroenke would be willing to pay. Whatever it is, it shows that the owners are taking the situation seriously, that they realize the final outcome could be financially devastating for the league.

That’s probably why Kroenke is looking for a loophole in his indemnity agreement. And it’s why the league already has contemplated the possibility of offering St. Louis an expansion franchise in order to make everything go away.

It’s also why everyone should be paying close attention to this one. St. Louis has the NFL on the run, and it’s bad enough that the NFL owners seem to be heading for a fight regarding who will foot the eventual bill.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Kroenke trying to back out of the indemnity he signed for the rest of the owners is a big development. And if the cost is billions, it would be smarter to give St Louis a team than to pay the eventual settlement verdict.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Another big leak talked about in that video....Seth Wickersham wrote a piece on ESPN how Jerry Jones asked Jeff Pash if Stan Kroenke is going to settle the liability on Dt Louis and if so how much is it likely to be, was told "in the billions, more than the net worth of many individual owners in the league"....florio talks about this as thats a really bad leak for the NFL if true because it will only embolden St Louis to not budge in the court case, not accept a settlement less than. And anyway, Kroenke is now trying to back out of the indemnity anyway, and in the owners meeting yesterday, they kicked Kroenke out for a period of time so they could talk about him behind his back about this case.

 

[00Stinger]

St Louis
San Diego
San Antonio or Austin
Toronto
London
Mexico City
Portland
Salt Lake City
Oklahoma City




Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

 

[Exe Gesis]

St Louis, San Diego, Chicago #2, Portland, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, either Sacramento or Fresno.

One for all eight divisions.

 

[00Stinger]

St Louis, San Diego, Chicago #2, Portland, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, either Sacramento or Fresno.

One for all eight divisions.

AFC East- Toronto
AFC North- Chicago #2
AFC West- Portland
AFC South- Oklahoma City


NFC East- London
NFC North- St Louis
NFC West- San Diego
NFC South- San Antonio or Austin