The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This was mentioned in another thread so i went searching. Turns out the owner not only owns Arsenal but has agreed to give up a home game for three years to play there. If he isn't trying to build a "home" base for the Rams, then ewhat is he doing? I mean, the NFL is already going to play there.

LONDON –  The St. Louis Rams took the first step toward becoming Britain's "home" team Friday, agreeing to play a regular-season NFL game in London in each of the next three seasons.
 
Their opponent is in the running to become Super Bowl champions.
 
The Rams will play the New England Patriots on Oct. 28 at Wembley in the first game of the deal, about two months after the closing ceremony of the London Olympics. That will be followed by games at Wembley against undetermined opponents in 2013 and 2014.
 

The Rams are owned by Stan Kroenke, who also is the majority shareholder in English club Arsenal. The team will give up home games in St. Louis in each of the three seasons to play in London.
 
"We've seen first-hand the increased popularity of the NFL not only in London but throughout Europe," Kroenke said in a statement. "To play a role in that growth over the next three years will be incredible and is a testament to the many good things happening not only in the NFL but also in the St. Louis Rams organization."This year's contest will be the sixth regular-season game at Wembley. Despite plans to bring a second game to Britain starting next season, the NFL said the Rams-Patriots date would be the only one in 2012.
 
"This year is a very competitive year for sport in the UK, especially with the Olympics in London," NFLUK managing director Alistair Kirkwood said. "Also, with the Rams having made an unprecedented commitment to playing in the UK for the next three years, we wanted to focus on them as our 'home' team without another game taking place.
 
"We would like to increase beyond one game per year as soon as possible and the five-year commitment by the owners to playing in the UK allows us to make that decision when we feel it is appropriate."
 
NFL owners agreed last year to play regular-season games in the UK for the next five seasons.
 
The league said Friday that all the games would be played at Wembley.
 
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has repeatedly spoken of the possibility of having a full-time franchise there one day.
 
The Rams finished 2-14 this season, tied for the NFL's worst, and have won only 15 games the last five seasons. Last week, the team hired Jeff Fisher as head coach to replace the fired Steve Spagnuolo.
 
The NFL first played at Wembley in 2007, with the New York Giants beating the Miami Dolphins 13-10. Since then, seven other teams have visited Britain, with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers making the trip twice.
 
The Patriots have already been to London, beating the Bucs 35-7 in 2009. The Bucs returned this season, losing to the Chicago Bears 24-18 in October -- the first of the Wembley games that wasn't a sellout.
 
This season, the Patriots have been one of the best teams in the league. Led by quarterback Tom Brady, they will face the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday in the AFC Championship with a chance to reach their fifth Super Bowl in the last 11 years.
 
And Patriots owner Robert Kraft is already looking forward to coming back to London.
 
"The United Kingdom is home to some of our most passionate Patriots fans, including the UKPatriots, who are among our most active fan clubs overall, not just overseas," Kraft said.
In the NFC Championship, the New York Giants will host the San Francisco 49ers.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/20/rams-to-play-one-regular-season-game-in-london-for-next-three-years/#ixzz1k2UdkOah

Toronto deserves its own team before London.

You will have an NFL team located in London full-time within the next decade or so. You will also see a Super Bowl in London as well. I mean if they are willing to play a Super Bowl in potentially freezing weather and snow in New York City, then London is going to get one. Make no mistake about it. Just a matter of WHEN and not "IF".

When Ralph Wilson dies Buffalo moving to Toronto is possible. But I also think Buffalo just moving in general  to the city that gives them the best deal is possible. Toronto will have to earn it and it will not be handed to them.

It's an interesting play but the flaw is the football fans over here are not Rams fans! You tend to see generational fans, when I got into it it was 49ers, Dolphins, Bears. Then there was a run of NE and Pittsburgh fans, Tampa have a few on the basis that its a holiday destination and there is the odd NYG and NYJ pocket for similar reasons...

But the Rams? I know one Rams fan and I would hazard a guess they are amongst the lowest backed teams in the UK. The fact that they're probably going to lose and to the pats who already have a following is going to bacfire.

On an aside Arsenal are bitter rivals of the Premier league team I support (Tottenham) so even more reason for me to not support the idea!

Totally off topic but I just made a deal to merge our youth club with a USLPro soccer team (Orlando City)  under Phil Rawlins who is one of the owners of Stoke City. Brendan Flood of Burnley is also a part of Orlando City.

The fans in Indy were not Colt fans before the team moved there.  LA didn't have many Dodgers fans when they played in Brooklyn.  Etc.

I bet you will know more Ram fans in three years from now.  

Maybe not...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-rams-must-play-all-home-games-at-dome/article_94108892-4928-11e1-a0da-001a4bcf6878.html

Rams owner Kroenke is one of the final people in the bidding to buy the Dodgers. IF he buys them he could make a package deal with the Rams and move them to LA when their lease is up. Which is what I think he is probably selling the LA people in these Dodgers talks

The Super Bowl will NEVER be played outside the US, they would lose tons of fans if they did that.


NY Governor Cuomo just put millions into this year's NYS budget (even though the State is broke) to keep the Bills playing in Western New York.  If Wilson stays alive another couple years they will probably have a new stadium built.

With LA looking to have a new stadium in place within the next few years, I doubt they are going to wait another 13 years for that lease to be up.

The Rams can get out of their stadium deal in 2014 if their dome is not upgraded to be a "top-tier" facility, which is defined as the upper 25% of NFL facilities.

Only 3 years or so and they can leave St.Louis

I stand corrected. The city of St. Louis has a week to have a plan in place to upgrade the dome. The Rams would have until May to present a counter offer. Either way the language describing "first tier" stadium is pretty vague. It sets up a pretty easy out for the Rams. Its a shame that St. Louis didn't have the counter offer of demanding that the Rams put out a "top tier" product.

If Kroenke buys the Dodgers, he almost has to move the Rams to LA. The NFL ownership rules prohibit "cross-ownership" in competing cities or territories -- and they've defined LA as a vacant "home territory" owned by the League. I.e. the rules are applied as if another NFL team were playing in LA.

If anyone cares, you can grab a copy of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL here: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

Of particular interest are sections 4.4.D, 1997-FC-3-1, and 2004-FC-2-1.

Kroenke is allowed to pursue buying the Dodgers specifically because the NFL defines LA as a vacant territory right now (so cross-territory doesn't apply); otherwise, they would make him divest himself of the Rams before he bought the Dodgers.  Specifically, 4.4 D says that no NFL club has rights to the LA area, and 1997-FC-3-1 says that an owner may purchase another major sports league franchise if it is not located within the home territory of any NFL club (emphasis added).

However, in practice, you're essentially correct; if Kroenke buys the Dodgers (and doesn't move them, natch) then he would have to sell the Rams as soon as LA got another NFL team (unless that team was the Rams).  That effectively means that he would have to move the Rams to LA to avoid losing them, as an LA team seems to be a priority for the league.

Didn't Kroenke have to put the Nuggets, Avalanche, the indoor lacrosse, and the soccer team he owns in Denver in his son's name when he bought the Rams? Can't remember exactly how he did it, but I know he had to do some stuff to make it work. But yeah he will have to re-work a few things if he gets the Dodgers.

Section 6 (1997-FC-3-6) specifically notes that "for the purpose of this resolution the "home territories" described above shall include each home territory in which a club is playing [...] as well as [...] LA".

Other parts of the bylaws also restrict a team from moving to LA without paying the league for the right to that (reserved) franchise.

You excised a particularly relevant part (emphasis added):

"6. That for purposes of this resolution the “home territories” described above shall include each home territory in which a club is currently playing (which, as of the date of this resolution, includes Houston) as well as the areas that would constitute the home territories of clubs playing in Cleveland, greater Los Angeles (including Orange County), Nashville, and Memphis."

This section is outlining the rights of the future team that moves to the LA market; namely, that another NFL owner could not purchase a major sports league franchise in their market.  The words "would" and "playing" indicate this.

This is perfectly consistent with the other sections, which explicitly state that 1) LA belongs to no NFL club, and 2) NFL owners may not buy sports franchises in the markets of other NFL clubs.

'

I disagree. The rights are reserved and applied as if a club were currently present in LA.

Let's just agree to disagree. I think the language is clear, as do you. We just don't agree on it and while I'd normally be all for spending another dozen posts bringing in relevant examples and arguments, way too many threads around here wind up as discussions of semantics and I'm not willing to contribute (even more) to that.

Fair enough; let's not get into legalese, as I doubt either one of us are professionally qualified to interpret (I know I'm not).  You said (emphasis added):

If the NFL's constitution is as you say, wouldn't Kroenke be prohibited from buying the Dodgers in the first place?  Under your interpretation, he wouldn't be permitted to buy the Dodgers and then try to move the Rams; the moment the Dodgers deal closed, he would be in violation of the NFL's rules and he would be forced to give up his stake in the Rams (not attempt to move them).

In other words, doesn't the fact that Kroenke is courting the Dodgers before the Rams are even eligible to move prove my point?

Considering how long the NFL has given him and other owners to get out from under violations, I'm not convinced. Kroenke still owns the Nuggets and the Avalanche which is a clear violation of the bylaws. No, he hasn't transferred them to his son yet (at least the NBA still has Stanley Kroenke listed as the owner of the Nuggets) and even if he had, that would not be allowed under the bylaws since 2004-FC-2-1 specifies that the cross-ownership rules are extended to the controlling owner's immediate family.

Another recent example of a violation that the league allowed to go uncorrected for a long time was that several of the Rooney brothers owned gambling facilities while also owning the Steelers. This went uncorrected for years and Goodell even had former commish Tagliabue installed as the front-man in trying to get the issue resolved. I'm not sure what the status of that is today, but I wasn't able to immediately find any news of the sale having been completed.

It may well be that the bylaws of the NFL lack any real teeth (it would certainly seem so), except where franchise sales and moves are concerned (issues that require a vote among owners).

That's a fair point.

Rams will not move to London due to the travel that would be involved.  Imagine London to San Diego....wtf!

Ideally they want 2 teams in Europe, 1 they can work with but 2 would be best. So when a "road" team goes to London or Berlin...etc they can stay for 2 weeks and play 2 games. And when the London team comes to the states they will stay for at least 2 games. They say ideally they want those Europe teams to be in an "eastern" type division to keep the longer flights to the west coast to a minimum. They have a whole way to make it work but it won't be easy. Not for a few years anyway. NFL Network was talking about it a while back and they had the rough proposal of how to make it best for everyone involved if/when the day comes. It was interesting

NFL teams in Europe full time is shit. Can the plan NFL. Don't ruin our league.

Agree 100%.

+1