Stan Kroenke- one of 7 finalists to BUY the dodgers?

**mikesteelnation1** · 02-29-2012, 02:13 AM

So I read today that kroenke is one of the finalists to buy the los Angeles dodgers. As a part of the NFL bylaws to ownership, one cannot own pro sports teams in different cities. That's why he had to restructure the ownership of the nuggets and avalanche to his wife. This situation begets a ton of questions and possible scenarios.

Does he actually want to buy them or is this a ploy to illict a new stadium deal from stl? I think he does want to buy them, apparently he wants his iron in every pro sports fire. That begets the next question:

If he wanted to own the dodgers and keep the rams in stl, why not make bids with his wife as the owner? Seems to me Mr kroenke might have plans to move the rams back to the city of angels on a reunion tour. We've heard tons about a new stadium deal in the second largest us media market, and now the vikes are off the table. Do you think the powers that be made a power play to get the rams in that stadium? Or is there a rule about owning a pro team in another sport in a city that doesn't have an NFL team?

My guess is even if there is a loophole the other owners wouldn't approve of one of their peers owning a team in the most used "threat" city to get a new stadium in the history of American sports... Especially considering a state of the art stadium is in the works sans a team to play in it..

What does FP think?

**darvon** · 02-29-2012, 12:19 PM

Very cool pickup.

Obviously St Louis is LA bound....

**Nancy** · 02-29-2012, 12:38 PM

Does he actually want to buy them or is this a ploy to illict a new stadium deal from stl? I think he does want to buy them, apparently he wants his iron in every pro sports fire. That begets the next question:

Obviously St Louis is LA bound....

Does sound like a move west may be in the offing.
I can't imagine that STL is going to build them another stadium. They just built a new baseball stadium and the Rams are certainly no where near the STL institution that the Cards are. Plus old Busch was about 40 years old when New Busch opened. TWA/Jones/Whatever dome isn't even 20 years old. Of course, as we learned here in Charlotte, the city will build or not regardless of what the citizens prefer (this is how we landed a second NBA team that no one cares about).

That aside, I do hope new ownership will revive the Dodgers franchise. Much as I hated them (well, mostly Steve Garvey) back in the '70s, it's sad to see a once-great organization come to this sorry estate.

**GoBigOrGoHome** · 02-29-2012, 12:44 PM

The NFL has a rule that an owner can't also own another pro sports team in the same city. If Kroenke does buy the Dodgers, that would preclude him from moving the Rams back to LA.

**darvon** · 02-29-2012, 02:30 PM

Nope. The rule is that if Guy X owns an NFL team in city Alpha, and if someone else owns an NFL team in city Beta, then Guy X cannot own a non-NFL team in city Beta. Which is why Kroenke had to sell his wife the teams in Denver when he wanted to own the Rams.

So if someone ELSE in the NFL moves to LA, then Kroenke owning the Dodgers would be a prob.

**darvon** · 02-29-2012, 02:34 PM

As example, Jerry Jones owned both the AFL Dallas Desperados and another western-theme team in Dallas.

**mikesteelnation1** · 02-29-2012, 02:57 PM

And Paul Allen owns the trail blazers, but there's no threat really of an NFL team going to Portland. Eventually some team will relocate to LA. Lots of small market teams that recently or will very soon in the future change hands in ownership will find moving to la appealing IMHO. That would create a huge problem with kroenke owning the dodgers, and we all know he knows this already, as he had to turn ownership of all his other American sports teams to his wife.

I don't know the answer to this, as I've never purchase a sports team , but one would think there has to be taxes or fees involved with transferring ownership. If so, why would he purchase the dodgers without knowing full well he was planning on moving the rams to la?

**wxwax** · 02-29-2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by darvon

Nope. The rule is that if Guy X owns an NFL team in city Alpha, and if someone else owns an NFL team in city Beta, then Guy X cannot own a non-NFL team in city Beta. Which is why Kroenke had to sell his wife the teams in Denver when he wanted to own the Rams.

So if someone ELSE in the NFL moves to LA, then Kroenke owning the Dodgers would be a prob.

I can see how this would lead to speculation that Kroenke wants to move the Rams.

However, he's back to square one if LA gets a second team, as I understand the rule.

As we've seen in Denver, he's flexible on whose name is on the franchise. Wiki says the Colorado franchises are in his son's name, Josh, not his wife's. No reason why the same couldn't be true of the Dodgers deal. Also, he has a daughter he could enmesh in his businesses.

My question is: who thinks Kroenke is a good owner, if "good" is defined by wins and losses? Under his ownership the Denver franchises haven't been special. Nor has the Arsenal football club in England. I think he's a cautious money manager. But he doesn't seem to have whatever separates a winning owner from a run-of-the-mill owner.

**mikesteelnation1** · 03-01-2012, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by wxwax

I can see how this would lead to speculation that Kroenke wants to move the Rams.

However, he's back to square one if LA gets a second team, as I understand the rule.

As we've seen in Denver, he's flexible on whose name is on the franchise. Wiki says the Colorado franchises are in his son's name, Josh, not his wife's. No reason why the same couldn't be true of the Dodgers deal. Also, he has a daughter he could enmesh in his businesses.

My question is: who thinks Kroenke is a good owner, if "good" is defined by wins and losses? Under his ownership the Denver franchises haven't been special. Nor has the Arsenal football club in England. I think he's a cautious money manager. But he doesn't seem to have whatever separates a winning owner from a run-of-the-mill owner.

I can't see la supporting 2 teams. It's struggled to support one. But your assertion is correct, if a 2nd team came he couldn't own the dodgers.

As far as kroenke as an owner, I think he's more like a collector, than an invested owner. Add to that none of his teams are good, and I think you have your answer. These are all large scale organizations, that require lots of time to be run properly..

**hobbes27** · 03-01-2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by mikesteelnation1

I can't see la supporting 2 teams. It's struggled to support one. But your assertion is correct, if a 2nd team came he couldn't own the dodgers.

As far as kroenke as an owner, I think he's more like a collector, than an invested owner. Add to that none of his teams are good, and I think you have your answer. These are all large scale organizations, that require lots of time to be run properly..

LA CAN support two teams. LA loves football, USC is seen as a pro team. If LA actually got its own team, the excitement about USC could easily transfer to one or both teams. What most people don't get about LA is that there are options for residents. So if the team stinks or they are boring to watch, fans aren't going to see them. There is plenty of stuff to do in LA. The reason why the Lakers are successful in LA is that they win and they are entertaining.