PRO FOOTBALL / SEASON PREVIEWS : Q&A; WITH RAM PRESIDENT JOHN SHAW : Move ‘Not a Foregone Conclusion’

One year from this very day--Sept. 3, 1995--the NFL will open the regular season with the Baltimore Rams playing to a full house in Camden Yards.

Fact or fiction?

According to John Shaw, Ram president, not even he knows where the team will be a year from now.

“Do I believe the Rams are going to move?” Shaw said, repeating a question. “It’s absolutely not a foregone conclusion, but it’s a distinct possibility.”

By the end of the month, Shaw will have met again in Los Angeles with Peter Angelos, majority owner of the Baltimore Orioles and the leader in the clubhouse in the battle over the Rams.

Hartford, Conn., has submitted a serious proposal to the Rams, St. Louis is building a stadium and Anaheim refuses to surrender.

A financial analyst has been hired to tour the interested cities and verify promises and projections that have been submitted to the Rams. The paper work is piling up, the clock is running and team owner Georgia Frontiere is waiting for Shaw’s recommendation.

A deal is all but in place with Angelos, who is acting on behalf of Baltimore, and it could be completed quickly, but Shaw said the team will wait to further explore Hartford and St. Louis, while also listening to Anaheim.

In a lengthy question-and-answer session with The Times recently, Shaw explained why this has become such a tedious task and detailed the options available to the Rams, including the sale of a minority interest in the team and the disadvantages accompanying each bid.

Question: Do you have a deal or an agreement in place to move the Rams?

Answer: We are not close to any deal.

Q: Isn’t it true, though, that you only have eyes for Baltimore?

A: I would say we’re in a holding pattern with Baltimore because we haven’t developed all the information on the other cities to the point we have with Baltimore.

Q: But is Baltimore your No. 1 choice?

A: Baltimore stands willing to do a deal, and I feel if we wanted to proceed in that case we could proceed rapidly. We have opted not to at this point. We want to develop the other situations and make sure we have the best deal available before making a final decision.

Q: What other cities remain real possibilities?

A: Hartford, St. Louis and Anaheim. Hartford has made a very serious proposal. It’s a state of Connecticut deal and Gov. (Lowell) Weicker is very energetic and enthusiastic.

Q: But still, isn’t Baltimore the front-runner?

A: There is no front-runner. All are very attractive cities that have talked about very attractive proposals. Each situation has tremendous advantages and certain disadvantages. None of the packages are such that we want to move there. Each one of them requires a great deal more work.

We have had extensive market analyses done in several of these cities and there is no doubt the Baltimore-Washington, D.C., marketplace is a very strong football marketplace. But there was also a study done for the league in 1979-1980 that said Anaheim was the No. 1 expansion marketplace. Studies are studies, and there’s still a lot of guesswork on which marketplace is best.

Q: What are the disadvantages to moving to Baltimore?

A: Whether the Redskins are going to be in Laurel, Md., or not? What interim site would we use? Camden Yards or Memorial Stadium? And then how would the Canadian Football League lease impact that? Would we sell a minority interest? And that seems to be a larger element in this transaction. We would need all the assurances again that the bonding is in place and a new stadium can be built once this governor’s term expires.

Q: Let’s go down the list: The disadvantages in Hartford?

A: Interim site. They are contemplating the Yale Bowl. How do we evaluate the marketplace, and the impact of two neighboring NFL teams, the (New England) Patriots and (New York) Giants? Can a new stadium be built and how long will it take? There are a whole bunch of issues in Hartford. We’re looking at a state of Connecticut team, and so the marketplace is not so clearly defined. There’s substantial homework to be done in Hartford. That situation presents a whole different approach.

Q: St. Louis?

A: The stadium lease is a big issue, a major issue. There is an indication they have been trying to deal with that, but we are no longer involved in discussions with St. Louis. If that lease is resolved, then I would say that becomes a viable situation. It has the advantage of having a stadium under construction.

Q: Most people believe you have no interest in remaining in Anaheim or listening to Anaheim’s efforts to keep the team.

A: Absolutely not true.

Q: What about Anaheim?

A: Anaheim is a little bit different because it never had the advantage of the head start these other cities have had. And Anaheim has been taking a lot of time to catch up. Obviously the issues in Anaheim are: Can they build a new stadium? Whether a renovated stadium suits our needs? Can the issues with the Angels--two tenants in the same stadium--be resolved? What can we do besides putting a better product on the field to create fan enthusiasm for the Rams?

Q: Does Anaheim really have any chance of competing with Baltimore, St. Louis, Hartford?

A: Each one of the three other cities would economically be substantially better. The first year we would realize a substantial profit; we are projecting a $6-million loss this year here.

I’ve said we’re trying to maximize our revenue, and so it’s very difficult to compete with new stadiums that are being funded with public money. I always imagined that Anaheim would have a hard time being able to put itself in the position to compete with these other cities. But I’m totally open to any proposal that Anaheim might make.

We were extremely cautious to say when we gave notice that we were terminating our lease that this did not mean the club was necessarily moving. I think the fact we gave 15-month notice was misinterpreted as something greater than an expression of intent. I think people viewed it as a fait accompli once we gave notice, but I don’t believe that’s the case.

Q: Has any other city in Southern California emerged as an alternative site to Anaheim?

A: The main thrust of the Southern California effort is coming from Anaheim.

Q: If the Rams move, they will have to pay off the remaining $30-million bond for Anaheim Stadium improvements. Will that be a problem in working out a deal elsewhere?

A: There’s no thought to the paying of that money in a lump sum. It can be paid out over time, so it’s not really a big issue. It’s just one item on a long list of wishes.

Q: Have you personally visited any of the cities you are currently considering?

A: No, and I presently have no plans to do so.

Q: Does the death of Tampa owner Hugh Culverhouse and the prospect now of the Buccaneers moving have an impact on what the Rams are going to do?

A: It’s unclear at this time how that situation might impact us. We have to do what is best for us and move forward.

Q: How soon before this is all settled?

A: I would say there’s a possibility it could be announced before the season’s done, but as we speak I can tell you no announcement is imminent.

Q: Do you look at the mid-February date required by NFL rules to give notice in order to play elsewhere in 1995 as the ultimate deadline?

A: It’s a deadline of sorts, but there is always the possibility of calling a special meeting if we did something later.

Q: Will the sale of a minority share in the team be part of any deal?

A: Baltimore is interested in minority ownership. Anaheim basically told us that if it was a necessary element of the deal, they would try to accommodate us. It doesn’t necessarily have to be an element of the deal.

Hartford is more like the Anaheim situation. If it had to be an element of the deal, they have an individual or number of individuals who would step up and be involved.

It’s not really a contemplated element of the deal. Jerry Clinton and Stan Kroenke are interested in minority ownership in St. Louis, but those negotiations are separate with the city. If there was a sale of the ownership piece that would be done later.

Q: What’s the next step?

A: We know where we are at in Baltimore. . . .

Q: Speaking of Baltimore, aren’t you concerned that Washington Redskin owner Jack Kent Cooke will attempt to block a move to Baltimore?

A: I haven’t focused so much on what is in his best interests. I’m much more focused on what’s in Georgia’s best interests. We’ve discussed what impact a team in Laurel might have on a team in Baltimore. That’s obviously a factor on a potential move to Baltimore, a substantial factor to be honest with you.

It’s obviously something we’re trying to evaluate. It has much more to do with the ability of those two marketplaces to support two NFL teams than it has to do with the desires or wishes of the other owner.

Q: Just what are you looking for?

A: We’re looking for a new state-of-the-art football-only stadium that maximizes revenue to the football tenant.

Q: So that would leave Anaheim out?

A: A new football-only stadium is possible in the other three cities we have talked about. Anaheim is still operating under the significant disadvantage of not having public funds available to them. Anaheim is still proposing a renovated Anaheim Stadium. It’s still unclear as to what the Angels would do.

Q: Why is this process taking so long?

A: There are a lot of elements in the various leases for new stadiums, leases for interim sites, and there are the legalities of league approval that haven’t been sorted out in each situation. We’re reviewing the possibilities of litigation in the event we do not get league approval. We’re not simply moving to a stadium. There are a number of problems related to such a move.

Q: Just how bad are things in Anaheim, in your estimation?

A: There was a drop in attendance following our announcement that we were terminating our lease. But I would tell you that our ticket sales have decreased continually since the championship ’89 season and decreased even before the announcement by roughly 40%.

Q: Do you believe the problem is that Southern California cannot support two NFL teams?

A: I’m not making any such statement. I simply have been given the responsibility to maximize our club’s revenue so that we can compete for players on the same basis as the other 29 clubs in the National Football League. I feel we can’t compete next year with the two expansion franchises, which will have substantially more revenue than we have. We need to improve our financial situation in order to compete.

Q: Attendance has dropped, but hasn’t the product the Rams have put on the field the past few years been less than inspiring?

A: I would tell people, to the extent the front office is involved with the product on the field, we’re trying desperately to improve it. We’re spending the same dollars as every other club trying to improve it, and if we haven’t succeeded in doing that, we will continue to try.

Q: Regarding money, there is talk around the league that you have the incentive to make this move happen because you will make big money as a result of it. Do you have such an agreement?

A: Absolutely no truth to it. I have no financial incentive. There is nothing in writing with ownership about me receiving money in the event we move.”

Q: Do you understand the fans’ reaction? Their frustration? Their feeling of helplessness? In some cases, their dislike for you?

A: It’s my job to do the best thing for ownership, the best thing for the football team and make it competitive. I’m hopeful that our team would be competitive so our fans could really get into our team. I don’t want to minimize the significance of the ultimate question of where the Rams will be, but I just think it’s something that will work itself out in time. It’s an important decision and I’m not going to make it hastily.