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.

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
That is undetermined at this point. There have been many conversations over the last 190 pages about this. The fact is the case law leans towards Stan, but it written so as to not be absolute. An anti-trust lawsuit by him , while likely, is not a 100% win. If the NFL won they could do EXACTLY that...legally.


That would be an enormous blow to all owners if they lost that fight. Nearly all the bite for their threats would go away. One could even see a situation occurring where a city could say, "no the current stadium is sufficient for you to make money and win games, so we'll wait a few years before talking stadium. Attendance is fine so there is no problem."
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
This is way beyond conceptual renderings..
It is very detailed. I do like the fact that it is sunk in. I would much rather walk down to my seats than climb up. By the time you get up to the nosebleed seats in the dome you don't even want to bring your ass back down for anything. That place looks awesome.
 

Ken

Starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
591
Name
Ken Morris
Chances are SK will move the Rams. But, if not, the most likely reason is that this is just another real estate development in his mind to help the NFL, and generate goodwill with the other NFL owners. If this new stadium complex is really the money maker it's being thought to be, he may even give sweetheart 'discounts' to the owners of the eventual NFL occupants (they get to keep a majority of the PSL money they generate, naming rights money is split in some fashion, etc. or maybe even let them buy into the project as part owners) so they come out ahead financially vs building the Carson project. He then starts negotiating with St. Louis about a new stadium once the financing has been approved and allocated for a stadium project.

I doubt it, but it's possible. And if the Rams don't move I think SK's stadium project is more likely to get done than the Carson project.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,107
That is undetermined at this point. There have been many conversations over the last 190 pages about this. The fact is the case law leans towards Stan, but it written so as to not be absolute. An anti-trust lawsuit by him , while likely, is not a 100% win. If the NFL won they could do EXACTLY that...legally.
The NFL can enforce penalties for a move without approval. They cant force him to stay. I'm sorry but that has been stated, and there is too much prior precedence. Now the perception of whether or not Stan would go to that extreme is up for debate, and that isnt what I am talking about.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Chances are SK will move the Rams. But, if not, the most likely reason is that this is just another real estate development in his mind to help the NFL, and generate goodwill with the other NFL owners. If this new stadium complex is really the money maker it's being thought to be, he may even give sweetheart 'discounts' to the owners of the eventual NFL occupants (they get to keep a majority of the PSL money they generate, naming rights money is split in some fashion, etc. or maybe even let them buy into the project as part owners) so they come out ahead financially vs building the Carson project. He then starts negotiating with St. Louis about a new stadium once the financing has been approved and allocated for a stadium project.

I doubt it, but it's possible. And if the Rams don't move I think SK's stadium project is more likely to get done than the Carson project.
If Carson wants to compete with Inglewood they have to come up with something else. When you compare both stadiums it's just not fair. It has a 6,000 performance arts theater thats perfect for the draft. NFL network this and that and we only know the half of it. Slowly and surely Stan is going to release info about the project and by the next owner meetings in May I think will see the final specs and maybe a video idk. Im telling you the backers of the project are in the process of gathering permits to start construction and supposedly they're supposed to have them by December. But the last time I heard mayor butts was last week on radio, he said they might get the permits earlier. Stan has more tricks up his sleeve I wouldn't be surprised if they got the permits and broke ground in September/October.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,473
Name
Dennis
If Carson wants to compete with Inglewood they have to come up with something else. When you compare both stadiums it's just not fair. It has a 6,000 performance arts theater thats perfect for the draft. NFL network this and that and we only know the half of it. Slowly and surely Stan is going to release info about the project and by the next owner meetings in May I think will see the final specs and maybe a video idk. Im telling you the backers of the project are in the process of gathering permits to start construction and supposedly they're supposed to have them by December. But the last time I heard mayor butts was last week on radio, he said they might get the permits earlier. Stan has more tricks up his sleeve I wouldn't be surprised if they got the permits and broke ground in September/October.

Plus the Carson project will require public money state politicians are never going to approve public funds when there is a private funding option on the table.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The NFL can enforce penalties for a move without approval. They cant force him to stay. I'm sorry but that has been stated, and there is too much prior precedence. Now the perception of whether or not Stan would go to that extreme is up for debate, and that isnt what I am talking about.

It's been stated, but I'm not sure if that makes it true. The prior precedent has some holes to it, it's been stated on here that the ruling left a lot of room for interpretation. And I remember someone quoting from the ruling about how precedent was not established by the ruling. So until an actual judge rules on the matter it's speculation.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Plus the Carson project will require public money state politicians are never going to approve public funds when there is a private funding option on the table.
I don't think they need public money. Isn't it financed by Goldman Sachs?

Even if they get the money I still think there's to many loose ends. Spanos even said the only reason we proposed the Carson project was Bc of Stan. That tells me they were never serious about Carson and it was a last minute move. Stans project is been going on for a couple of years that its so far ahead of Carson. Stan is serious about moving he bought the land last year where Spanos is buying the land now. Sure the Carson project could change by the end of the year and we could be singing a different tune but as of right now. Stans project is wayyyy ahead.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
The NFL can enforce penalties for a move without approval. They cant force him to stay. I'm sorry but that has been stated, and there is too much prior precedence. Now the perception of whether or not Stan would go to that extreme is up for debate, and that isnt what I am talking about.


And who "stated" that? Certainly not the league...they wouldn't admit such a thing, and that isn't the holding of any court....so that is only someones opinion. While I agree that there is precedent it isn't in the form of a brightline ruling stating absolutely, in fact the case law states that such cases are handled on a case by case basis...so there isn't "too much" prior precedent. Now if you want to say it is unlikey they take it that far, or that it is unlikey they win that is reasonable assertion (and I agree with both of those). But until the case occurs no one can say who absolutely wins it is all opinion.

My belief is if it went to court on anti-trust issues it is between 25%-95% that he wins depending on the exact circumstances (wide margin due to so many different scenarios, not the 25% scenario is one I can't see him even fighting....)
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,107
It's been stated, but I'm not sure if that makes it true. The prior precedent has some holes to it, it's been stated on here that the ruling left a lot of room for interpretation. And I remember someone quoting from the ruling about how precedent was not established by the ruling. So until an actual judge rules on the matter it's speculation.
The only speculation is that it could be upheld. There is too much precedent.
In any event the idea that they "can" force him to stay is not factual.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
10,777
Name
Scott
Plus the Carson project will require public money state politicians are never going to approve public funds when there is a private funding option on the table.
I strongly believe the STL stadium will be built.
I have strong doubts the Rams will be the team playing in it.

Regarding the Carson site.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the project will require both, the Chargers and Raiders.
Both teams a currently expressing at least some interest in staying in their current markets.
What if the Chargers stay in SD? The Raiders can't go on their own.
If the Raiders stay in Oakland? Maybe the Chargers have the means to still go to Carson. I'm not sure, but it's doubtful.

Regarding the Inglewood site.
Stan is ready and appears to want to go. He has the means to do it on his own.
If the league refuses Stan plan to Inglewood, there is still the possibility that the Carson project won't happen. Leaving the league out of LA.
I believe the league will put their votes on the sure thing to get to LA. Stan's. I think his plan is simply too good for the league to pass up.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,923
Name
Stu
One thing I can tell you is the Rams moving to L.A. will not put any money in any of the other owners' pockets.
That is not known either. Increased swag sales and a bigger TV deal could be in the offing if it is the LA Rams. I'm not saying it definitely would put more money in the other owners' pockets but my guess is that it would over the long haul. Still, I am not sure if that would be a game changer. The overall league benefit has to be there and that is probably Stan's biggest sales pitch to deliver. If he can demonstrate that, he likely gets approval.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Do you really think the owners will vote yes with a valid and funded stadium in a downtown location?

Yes I do. That's mostly due to the fact that the NFL hasn't been consistent on many things. One thing they have been though, is doing what makes them the the most money. The entire Inglewood project gives the NFL different options, the draft, Super Bowls , Pro Bowls, plus the option for two teams, new ways to make money. Unfortunately the St Louis project cannot compete with that, it's not designed to, it's designed for a football team, Inglewood is designed for more than that. Now that doesn't mean all hope is lost, there's a lot of different things I can see happening here. However I can definetely see the owners voting "Yes" to relocate due to the size and benefits of the Inglewood project. They've wanted a team in LA for a long time, and wanted it done right, that plan does it very right.

Having all the boxes checked that they can, obviously gives St Louis a better chance, but a Carson site that can compete with Inglewood is also important, because it gives them an alternative. Right now, I don't see the Carson site as much competition by the sheer scope of it all, but they can change things up. The NFL can also decide that they are happy with just a stadium, and vote no as well. There's a lot that can sway votes and make things happen. I think Kroenke will need to convince the league that his plan is best for the NFL's return to LA, and thus far it certainly seem that way.

don't think they need public money. Isn't it financed by Goldman Sachs?

I believe they're just helping them secure financing, similar to what they did with Levi's stadium. They didn't actually put up money for construction.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The only speculation is that it could be upheld. There is too much precedent.
In any event the idea that they "can" force him to stay is not factual.

See drasconis post #3808 regarding precedent.

As to whether the other is factual, some say it is and some say it isnt. A link to someone saying conclusively that it's not factual would help settle some arguments if you have a source that says that.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,107
See drasconis post #3808 regarding precedent.

As to whether the other is factual, some say it is and some say it isnt. A link to someone saying conclusively that it's not factual would help settle some arguments if you have a source that says that.
Your post says it all.
It is not factual to say that the NFL can force the Rams to stay

As for a precedent, the Los Angeles Rams moved without approval
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
That is not known either. Increased swag sales and a bigger TV deal could be in the offing if it is the LA Rams. I'm not saying it definitely would put more money in the other owners' pockets but my guess is that it would over the long haul. Still, I am not sure if that would be a game changer. The overall league benefit has to be there and that is probably Stan's biggest sales pitch to deliver. If he can demonstrate that, he likely gets approval.
Yeah, I'm pretty much going off of what I have been hearing on the radio. They dug into particulars that I can't even remember but in the end they believed that the team being in LA would not put any money into the other owners' pockets. They did touch on the tv deal and stated that they already have a tv deal in the LA market and how that wouldn't change much.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Your post says it all.
It is not factual to say that the NFL can force the Rams to stay

As for a precedent, the Los Angeles Rams moved without approval
Agreed, but at the same time nothing any of us is spitting out is factual. It's all speculation at this point. The sooner this thing is over the better. I was kind of happy to hear that Goodell wanted to move the date up to apply for relocation.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Yes I do. That's mostly due to the fact that the NFL hasn't been consistent on many things. One thing they have been though, is doing what makes them the the most money. The entire Inglewood project gives the NFL different options, the draft, Super Bowls , Pro Bowls, plus the option for two teams, new ways to make money. Unfortunately the St Louis project cannot compete with that, it's not designed to, it's designed for a football team, Inglewood is designed for more than that. Now that doesn't mean all hope is lost, there's a lot of different things I can see happening here. However I can definetely see the owners voting "Yes" to relocate due to the size and benefits of the Inglewood project. They've wanted a team in LA for a long time, and wanted it done right, that plan does it very right.

Having all the boxes checked that they can, obviously gives St Louis a better chance, but a Carson site that can compete with Inglewood is also important, because it gives them an alternative. Right now, I don't see the Carson site as much competition by the sheer scope of it all, but they can change things up. The NFL can also decide that they are happy with just a stadium, and vote no as well. There's a lot that can sway votes and make things happen. I think Kroenke will need to convince the league that his plan is best for the NFL's return to LA, and thus far it certainly seem that way.



I believe they're just helping them secure financing, similar to what they did with Levi's stadium. They didn't actually put up money for construction.
Well one thing everyone can agree on is that the NFL is not consistent. You have Goodell saying that the NFL is not focused on an LA team in 2016 and how he is pleased with Stl's stadium progress and then he turns around and wants to move up the relocation application process to possibly November. This stuff is ridiculous and has everyone's head on a swivel.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Well one thing everyone can agree on is that the NFL is not consistent. You have Goodell saying that the NFL is not focused on an LA team in 2016 and how he is pleased with Stl's stadium progress and then he turns around and wants to move up the relocation application process to possibly November. This stuff is ridiculous and has everyone's head on a swivel.
Whenever I hear Roger speak to the media I really don't hear him say anything. He just talks. He puts a positive spin on everything. That's his job. We've been through this with him over the years. Rodgers just being Rodger. Same ole same
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,107
Agreed, but at the same time nothing any of us is spitting out is factual. It's all speculation at this point. The sooner this thing is over the better. I was kind of happy to hear that Goodell wanted to move the date up to apply for relocation.
Amen to that. I just want the whole thing over too. Just stings that after being on these boards for 10+ years I've made tons of friends in St Lou area and Cali, and will probably see some of them go away based on that result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.