New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
They've already said they don't want expansion though, numerous times. I don't discount that 500M might be what it takes to move to LA, but if that is the number then Kroenke is the only one left to move. Lower the number the better chance for someone else to move instead of the Rams.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
They've already said they don't want expansion though, numerous times. I don't discount that 500M might be what it takes to move to LA, but if that is the number then Kroenke is the only one left to move. Lower the number the better chance for someone else to move instead of the Rams.

Of course, they'll say that now. They've got 4 cities playing the stadium game, and they aren't going to hold out hope of another chance until that's resolved. That's why Grubman tells us to concentrate on the Rams despite us clearly being in the lead for any other teams that may look to move.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
They've already said they don't want expansion though, numerous times. I don't discount that 500M might be what it takes to move to LA, but if that is the number then Kroenke is the only one left to move. Lower the number the better chance for someone else to move instead of the Rams.

I think other owners could afford it. Spanos is worth 1.3 BIL, Davis is worth 1.7 BIL.

The last time I heard anything about expansion was a few years ago, so that may be different now. But of course these conversations happen every time someone throws a computer generated stadium jpg up on the web LOL.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I think other owners could afford it. Spanos is worth 1.3 BIL, Davis is worth 1.7 BIL.

The last time I heard anything about expansion was a few years ago, so that may be different now. But of course these conversations happen every time someone throws a computer generated stadium jpg up on the web LOL.

They're both cash strapped, they are worth that much because they have teams, and would need to sell them, or significant portions of them to afford that cost.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Of course, they'll say that now. They've got 4 cities playing the stadium game, and they aren't going to hold out hope of another chance until that's resolved. That's why Grubman tells us to concentrate on the Rams despite us clearly being in the lead for any other teams that may look to move.

How are the Rams in the lead to move?

The Chargers and Raiders both have publicly said they intend to move to LA if they can't work it out - Stan has said nothing. (In fact he's only preached Praise for St.Louis when he bought the team)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121918

ST. LOUIS -- Billionaire Stan Kroenke says he wants to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

The comments are his first since announcing he wants to buy the 60 percent of the team he doesn't yet own.

"There's a track record," Kroenke told the newspaper. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

Illinois businessman Shahid Khan is also bidding for the 60 percent stake in the Rams. Kroenke declined to comment on details of his bid and he has not returned repeated calls from The Associated Press.

The team's majority owner and chairman, Chip Rosenbloom, told the Post-Dispatch, "There's no reason to believe that Stan would be anything less than committed to St. Louis."

Rosenbloom said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that he couldn't comment on details of the sales process.

Kroenke lives in Columbia, Mo. He also owns the NBA's Denver Nuggets and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche.

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke told the newspaper. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."


Raiders and Chargers have been working on their stadiums for 5+ years now - This is going to be the Rams 1st year on a lease to lease situation.

Does anyone here really think the Owners are going to vote that Stan can move when St.Louis is the only city putting up money to build the stadium?
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
How are the Rams in the lead to move?

The Chargers and Raiders both have publicly said they intend to move to LA if they can't work it out - Stan has said nothing. (In fact he's only preached Praise for St.Louis when he bought the team)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121918




Raiders and Chargers have been working on their stadiums for 5+ years now - This is going to be the Rams 1st year on a lease to lease situation.

Does anyone here really think the Owners are going to vote that Stan can move when St.Louis is the only city putting up money to build the stadium?

What are you talking about? I'm saying that the city of St Louis is in the lead to get another team if the Rams go, but the NFL isn't going to say that while stadium plans for the Rams are going on.

Also, that quote is really old. Things change in 5 years, hell I've relocated since then.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
What are you talking about? I'm saying that the city of St Louis is in the lead to get another team if the Rams go, but the NFL isn't going to say that while stadium plans for the Rams are going on.

my bad - misunderstood
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
The other problem with trying to get that Oakland stadium built? The A's don't want it.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaki...ioritize-parking-over-development-at-coliseum

OAKLAND -- In another potential blow for transforming the sprawling Oakland Coliseum complex into a bustling sports and entertainment district, A's co-owner Lew Wolff said that if his team were to build a new ballpark at the site he would want it surrounded by acres of surface parking spaces -- just like O. Co Coliseum is now.

Less than a week after the Oakland Raiders announced they were pursuing a stadium proposal in Los Angeles, Wolff said there is not enough land readily available at the Coliseum complex to build a stadium and satisfy the city's desire for additional development, such as homes, shops, offices and a hotel.

The only way it could work, Wolff said, would be to build multilevel parking garages, but that would leave fans waiting in long lines to exit the garages and begin their drives home.

"Parking is a key issue for us," Wolff said. "We want surface parking surrounding the ballpark wherever we build it unless we're in the heart of a downtown."

Once again it continues to look like its the A's or Raiders in Oakland and that choice has been pretty clear from the beginning.
 

Big Unit

UDFA
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
96
IF you took the current identified franchises out of the mix, and played "God" - or "best interests of the NFL" for a minute - this is how it appears to me:

1. Two franchises in LA, AND a franchise in San Diego, is basically unworkable. There should either be two franchises in LA, sharing a stadium but each in a different conference (NFC and AFC), as there is currently in New York/New Jersey; OR one team in LA, one team in San Diego; anything else would be unfair, either to the teams in LA, or to a remaining team in San Diego.

2. Regardless of the history of a team in Oakland, IF there are to be three franchises in California, rather than 4, the Bay Area should have only one of those franchises. The Raiders are a national franchise - as they were when they were in LA - but locally, the Niners dominate; there's marginal fan base for two franchises, but ample fan base for one. That's not an NFL issue - it's a Bay Area issue. (MLB has FIVE franchises in CA; question is whether they should have 3 or 4 NFL franchises).

3. St. Louis doesn't NEED a team; they've gotten along without one for years, and regardless which NFL franchise might be in St. Louis, it'll play second fiddle to the best organization in baseball, the Cardinals. Consequently, NFL support in St. Louis will be directly related to team success, maybe even more than in many other markets.

4. Regardless of #3 above, St. Louis is either the 19th largest or 21st largest market in the US. Metro San Diego is even a bit larger (3million vs. 2.8million), but they have Mexico 20 miles to the south; the behemoth of Orange County and LA 120 miles to the North; and the Pacific to the west. Those are all huge assets, but at the same time, somewhat restrict a potential San Diego market. St. Louis is not similarly restricted; closest competing NFL markets are KC to the west (an AFC team); Chicago to the north; and Indianapolis to the east. None of those markets impinge or share in the St. Louis market; and two (KC and Chicago) are long-time natural rivals; unlike in San Diego, a team in St. Louis would ADD to the value of those teams (particularly KC), rather than detract from that value.

5. The war-of-words between two LA suburbs - Inglewood and Carson - in my mind is rather unseemly to the NFL; clearly secondary to the larger "best interests of the NFL". A stadium is a necessity, as is attendance; but the NFL has already "sold its soul" to television; to the point of adding Thursday games; nurturing Fantasy Leagues; starting its own network and ancillary networks (e.g., NFL Red Zone); etc. NFL franchises are affiliated with cities because they HAVE to be located somewhere, and because of current sport tradition; but to the NFL, location is less important than the league brand, and than the brand of a franchise. It can vary by location (e.g - affiliated with a State, the Minnesota Vikings; or even a region, the New England Patriots; needn't be in the city (new Niners stadium is 45+ miles from San Francisco; or even in the same State (the Giants and Jets); but location is less important than development of national brands.

6. The NFL is dominant at present; but that dominance is very dependent on continued good will of the American public; and that good will has taken some hits of late. That includes everything from domestic violence, to issues related to concussion and injury, and to issues of what constitutes cheating (deflategate). Protection of that good will in public perception is a dominating issue in how the League deals with LA; possibly even more so than who's building a stadium; whether public or private financing; etc. I believe this has been a difficult time for the NFL in the public perception; so they want to handle LA in a way that doesn't further diminish the League's stature.

7. The NFL "protects the shield" even more than do other major sports leagues; which are more attuned to the local market. They share money equally (apart from Jerry Jones, anyway), which is why they can maintain a team in a smaller market, like Green Bay. But that also means individual teams are or are not "national" teams, more so than affiliated with the local market alone. There's a reason that ever team wears pink at about the same time, to recognize the battle against breast cancer; but it's clearly a national issue, not local.

8. The NFL in general is attuned to the fact that all this television presence, all of this "national branding", is or might soon negatively impact on the "fan experience" of attending games. I think the NFL collectively knows that the popularity of their brand is in part related to the fan experience; everything from the "12th man" in Seattle; to the crowd noise battle currently in play between Kansas City and Seattle; to the "dog pound" in Cleveland; to the Cowboys cheerleaders; to the "Redskins band" in DC; to the "frozen tundra" of Lambeau Field. The NFL NEEDS a passionate fan base to show up for it's games - both for the experience itself - but even more so to make sure they still have an appealing product to sell on TV.

9. The NFL wants to "grow the brand". Why else would they move games to London? Can't they find enough fans in the US? Does TV viewership of games in London increase significantly in the US? Hell, no! They want people in Europe to watch, too - and the best way is to give them a rooting interest.

10. I think the NFL perceives LA as a way they can personify some of the above issues. A two-team stadium - maybe with NFL studios nearby, a year-around "NFL experience" - or whatever - is probably very appealing to current owners. Fox already has it's studio programs in LA; not sure of the other networks - but I think they perceive LA, because of it's recognized role as a media and entertainment center - as "more than the sum of it's parts". It's a rare opportunity for the League; they want to maximize it; and these overarching issues are more important than the interests of Inglewood; or Carson; or even Stan Kroenke or the owners of the Chargers and Raiders.

Unless current NFL owners have a personal interest - be it financial, or a matter of friendship, whatever - I think these are the issues that most predominate in how they handle Los Angeles (both Inglewood and Carson); and San Diego; and Oakland; and St. Louis. And I think how Roger Goodell leads the owners through this process - or fails to do so - is critically important to his position as commissioner. This is "where do we see the NFL in 2020?"; everything else is just quibbling. Local plans - whether those of Inglewood, or Carson, or San Diego, or Oakland, or St. Louis - must be "good enough"; but probably are not determinative.

That's how I see it.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
Great synopsis @Big Unit. Thanks for all the effort you put into that. (y)

The NFL is a money-making machine and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that not only continues but increases. After over 2,500 posts in this thread I still don't know what will finally happen concerning which teams will stay where they are and which teams will relocate, but there sure have been some great reads.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
3. St. Louis doesn't NEED a team; they've gotten along without one for years, and regardless which NFL franchise might be in St. Louis, it'll play second fiddle to the best organization in baseball, the Cardinals. Consequently, NFL support in St. Louis will be directly related to team success, maybe even more than in many other markets.

You guys really need to stop with this "baseball city" shit.

And what city does "NEED" a team? What city needs a museum? A zoo? Etc.?
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Great synopsis @Big Unit. Thanks for all the effort you put into that. (y)

The NFL is a money-making machine and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that not only continues but increases. After over 2,500 posts in this thread I still don't know what will finally happen concerning which teams will stay where they are and which teams will relocate, but there sure have been some great reads.

I've been trying to tell you, aren't you listening? :whistle:
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
Come to think of it... How much tourism does the Arch really bring in? Can we just give that to L.A. too? Hmm... what else don't we "need"?
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
I think that's the ticket. Just start trimming the fat here of things we don't "need," and then this will be a really great city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.