Skip to content

Kroenke moves closer to buying the Dodgers

St Louis Rams Introduce Jeff Fisher Getty Images

As MDS pointed out earlier in the day, the Rams and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission have struck a deal.  But not a deal to keep the Rams in St. Louis.  Instead, it’s a deal to play one regular-season home game in London.

And so the long-term future of the Rams remains uncertain.  It will get even more uncertain as Rams owner Stan Kroenke gets closer to buying the L.A. Dodgers.

According to the Los Angeles Times (via SportsBusiness Daily), Peter O’Malley has abandoned his bid to buy the team.  Since O’Malley was one of 11 bidders to make the first cut, his departure drops the number of competitors to 10.

One of the 10 is Kroenke.

The group will be cut to five after a new wave of bidding.  And then, after another round of bidding, a winner will be selected.

If Kroenke is successful, the relocation of any team other than the Rams to L.A. could create problems under the league’s cross-ownership rules.  NFL owners may own teams in other major-league sports, as long as those teams aren’t in the same as another NFL team.  The rule never has been applied in a situation where an NFL team moves to a market where another NFL owner’s baseball, basketball, or hockey team is headquartered.

Permalink 21 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, St. Louis Rams
21 Responses to “Kroenke moves closer to buying the Dodgers”
  1. roamingabriel says: Feb 22, 2012 2:32 PM

    Just how does O’Malley dropping out YESTERDAY move Kroenke any closer?

    That said I hope he does buy them and move the Rams back home…

  2. AlohaMrHand says: Feb 22, 2012 2:36 PM

    Stan Kroenke is trying to conquer the earth.

  3. Gordon says: Feb 22, 2012 2:52 PM

    What is the reason for this rule? I’m not sure I ever saw an explanation for it.

  4. golonger says: Feb 22, 2012 3:12 PM

    1) move the Rams back to LA
    2) move the Cardinals back to St. Louis
    3) move the Colts back to Baltimore
    4) move the Ravens to Arizona
    5) move the Jaguars to Indy (call them the Racers)
    6) close up shop in Jax
    7) change the name of the Texans to the Oilers

    The NFL would then be right!!!!!

  5. nineroutsider says: Feb 22, 2012 3:22 PM

    Not sure about the rule, but I hope they make an exception if he buys the Dodgers too; the Rams belong in LA and should be brought back. I hope he does get the Dodgers too and makes both teams more competitive, sure I hate my rivals just as much as any fan, but the games are far better when they’re competitive and matter. The 9ers and Rams in the 80’s had some great games, bring’em back now!

    More importantly, maybe the California Rams fans won’t come to the Stick by the thousands just to see their team play. Does anyone know if the Rams still have more fans out west than do in MO?

  6. gooboy6 says: Feb 22, 2012 3:39 PM

    he looks like a porn star with that cheesy mustache working…

  7. youngry says: Feb 22, 2012 3:40 PM

    I know he was rich beforehand but damn, I wish I married into the Walton family.

  8. rcali says: Feb 22, 2012 3:58 PM

    Please let Mark Cuban buy the team. No more used car and parking lot salesman.

  9. billybatty says: Feb 22, 2012 4:02 PM

    California will fall in the ocean one day. Who would move there? Did no one see 1st superman movie?

  10. quizguy66 says: Feb 22, 2012 4:10 PM

    The Rams should go back to Cleveland where they were born! :)

    Anyway, the article is written in a confusing fashion: “If Kroenke is successful, the relocation of any team other than the Rams to L.A. could create problems under the league’s cross-ownership rules. NFL owners may own teams in other major-league sports, as long as those teams aren’t in the same as another NFL team.”

    The above seems to indicated that St. Louis would be the only team that COULD NOT move to L.A. since the rules prevent owning football and baseball teams in the same market. Seems like any other team would not have that problem. Correct?

    -QG

  11. golonger says: Feb 22, 2012 4:22 PM

    ..he’s also moving closer to starring with Ron Jeremy in ” Debbie does Moustaches”

  12. rollteal says: Feb 22, 2012 4:27 PM

    Go longer..
    Stop living in the past what’s done is done. Moving the all those teams or names around is moronic.
    Ravens in Az ?

  13. golonger says: Feb 22, 2012 4:37 PM

    QC – you are right, MF made this about as confusing as one can make it!

  14. lilrob10201 says: Feb 22, 2012 5:03 PM

    What is Hitler doing in that picture ?

  15. litemater95 says: Feb 22, 2012 5:35 PM

    Charles Bronson’s stunt double………

  16. rohlo says: Feb 22, 2012 5:37 PM

    quizguy66 says:
    Feb 22, 2012 4:10 PM
    The Rams should go back to Cleveland where they were born!

    Anyway, the article is written in a confusing fashion: “If Kroenke is successful, the relocation of any team other than the Rams to L.A. could create problems under the league’s cross-ownership rules. NFL owners may own teams in other major-league sports, as long as those teams aren’t in the same as another NFL team.”

    The above seems to indicated that St. Louis would be the only team that COULD NOT move to L.A. since the rules prevent owning football and baseball teams in the same market. Seems like any other team would not have that problem. Correct?

    -QG

    Actually the rule is you can own an nfl team in one city and a mlb or nba franchise in antoher city..they would all have to be in the same city when it comes to the nfl..i dont think mlb anfd nba really care! its the nfl!!!

    if he buys dodgers he would have to move the rams to LA or sell them because nfl rules state you cant own another sports franchsie if it is outside the city your nfl franchise you own is..

  17. fmwarner says: Feb 22, 2012 5:52 PM

    quizguy66 says: Feb 22, 2012 4:10 PM

    The Rams should go back to Cleveland where they were born! :)

    Anyway, the article is written in a confusing fashion: “If Kroenke is successful, the relocation of any team other than the Rams to L.A. could create problems under the league’s cross-ownership rules. NFL owners may own teams in other major-league sports, as long as those teams aren’t in the same as another NFL team.”

    The above seems to indicated that St. Louis would be the only team that COULD NOT move to L.A. since the rules prevent owning football and baseball teams in the same market. Seems like any other team would not have that problem. Correct?

    -QG
    ====================================
    No, the Rams would be the only team allowed. The rule prevents NFL owners from owning a sports team in another NFL city. The reason for this is that teams in other sports are considered competition by the NFL, who does not want its owners competing for revenue in the same city.

    If Kroenke were to own the Dodgers, no other owner could move an NFL team to Los Angeles because that would put them in competition with another team (the Dodgers) owned by another NFL owner (Kroenke). Another owner moving to LA would make LA an NFL city, and therefore that team and the Dodgers occupying the same city would violate the rule. However, Kroenke is free to compete with himself, making the Rams the only team that could move to LA.

  18. thestillcity says: Feb 22, 2012 6:41 PM

    As a fan of the Nuggets and Avalanche, the last place I want to see Kroenke’s money go to is a financial mess in a non-salary cap league; but as a Rockies fan, I’m intrigued.

    Kroenke v. Monfort, in a little Denver rivalry, could be fun.

  19. surly1n1nd1anapol1s says: Feb 22, 2012 6:55 PM

    How many titles have Stan’s multitude of teams won?

  20. fmwarner says: Feb 22, 2012 10:59 PM

    rohlo says: Feb 22, 2012 5:37 PM

    Actually the rule is you can own an nfl team in one city and a mlb or nba franchise in antoher city..they would all have to be in the same city when it comes to the nfl..i dont think mlb anfd nba really care! its the nfl!!!

    if he buys dodgers he would have to move the rams to LA or sell them because nfl rules state you cant own another sports franchsie if it is outside the city your nfl franchise you own is..
    ===================================

    That’s not the rule. An NFL owner can own a team in another sport in any city he wants, as long as that other city does NOT have an NFL team owned by somebody else. For instance, Paul Allen owns the Seahawks as well as the Portland Trail Blazers, which is okay because there is no NFL team in Portland.

  21. bigsexy2288 says: Feb 23, 2012 2:44 AM

    Forget the sorry rams, leave em where they are. We’ve been down this road before and no one cared about the rams that’s why no tears were shed when they left. Let’s not forget the crap the put on the field before, then they leave and a couple years latter they win. Screw the rams give us a new franchise not a piece of crap team from another city.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!