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.

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
To be fair, the Jaguars are also stuck in their lease until 2030, and in order to get out of it they need to open their books and show they lost money one year, and then were below league average the next two years (meaning the other teams also have to open their books) which is just not going to happen. If the Jags were free to move, we have no idea what Khan would do, he may be less inclined to invest there.

Well, if Stan up and does whatever the hell he wants to do with the team, all Khan has to do is buy out of his lease for a measly 200 million and move the team whenever he wants. What goes around, comes around.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
That's not going to happen IMO and the NFL is not obligated to do anything. They can't force Kroenke to sell the Rams. Unfortunately Kroenke IMO is going to get what he wants and because of the built in fan base and the populatiry of the Rams, Kroenke wants to bring the Rams back to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times Poll had people favoring the Rams significantly like 84%, 10% Raiders & 6% Chargers.

I don't think Los Angeles wants the Raiders, if they end up with two teams they would prefer the Rams & Chargers so IMO, Kroenke's not selling and the financing for the new stadium even if they get public money includes Kroenke kicking in 250 million. Nobody has answered what if Kroenke does not want to kick in that amount?
Well, I believe it was Robert Kraft who said the NFL has an "obligation" to stay in St. Louis if the terms are met. That could be a number of scenarios, however. IMO, those polls don't mean squat to me because they're asking people to pick who they like more out of the 3 teams. How many people contributed to the poll and how many are Rams fans? I'm willing to bet if there was a poll in the LA Times asking readers to choose between Raiders/Chargers or nothing, the Raiders/Chargers would win in overwhelming fashion. My point is if the NFL is going to be welcomed back to LA it won't be tied to the Rams franchise coming back. LA will welcome the NFL back, period. I mean, that's what people are saying about St. Louis, right? Just plop the Raiders there and it will be all good because it's the NFL. Right?

Btw, this question isn't directed at you, den. I'm just tired of the general thinking that's it's ok to yank a franchise from a fanbase after 20 years and replace it with an even worse one. The fans in St. Louis has supported a losing ass team for 10 years and right when it is on the cusp of breaking through that team may move out and another losing ass franchise with no bright future ahead of them could move in. That shit isn't fair and it pisses a lot of fans and local media off.
 
Last edited:

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,497
Name
Dennis
Just plop the Raiders there and it will be all good because it's the NFL. Right? Btw, this question is directed at you, den.

I get it @dbrooks25 & I don't think it's right, hell, I didn't think it was right when the Rams moved to St. Louis back in 95, but I understood why. Unfortunately, there is going to be a loser when this unfolds. Really nobody knows how this is going to play out, but IMO, there is no way the NFL is going to force Kroenke out and it's quite obvious they prefer his stadium, but how can they save face with St. Louis? That is the question and at this point all we can do is speculate or just wait on the outcome and the sad part the loser in this will be the fans not the owners.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
1. You forgot Oakland and San Diego to L.A. and Rams stay in St. Louis. I know you don't like it but that is in fact one of the scenarios that could happen regardless of the "actions speak louder than words" line. The fact still is out of all 3 cities St. Louis is the only one with a viable stadium plan and very likely have their portion of the funding situated by the end of the year.
2. Not everybody will be happy no matter what happens.
If the Chargers and Raiders move to LA, they're going to play in the Inglewood stadium Stan is building. No matter what that stadium is going to get built.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
If the Chargers and Raiders move to LA, they're going to play in the Inglewood stadium Stan is building. No matter what that stadium is going to get built.
Now I can say without doubt that yours is wishful thinking as most of your posts are laced with LA bias. Not saying the Inglewood stadium won't get done, but "If the Chargers and Raiders move to LA, they're going to play in the Inglewood stadium Stan is building. No matter what that stadium is going to get built"? Stop it, dude. Try to have a little objectivity when it comes to this thing. If that stadium doesn't get done somehow you're going to fall on your ass really hard because you're way up in the clouds. Regardless of how small it is, there is a chance that the LA stadium doesn't go through Kroenke.
 

brokeu91

The super shrink
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
5,546
Name
Michael
That's not going to happen IMO and the NFL is not obligated to do anything. They can't force Kroenke to sell the Rams. Unfortunately Kroenke IMO is going to get what he wants and because of the built in fan base and the populatiry of the Rams, Kroenke wants to bring the Rams back to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times Poll had people favoring the Rams significantly like 84%, 10% Raiders & 6% Chargers.

I don't think Los Angeles wants the Raiders, if they end up with two teams they would prefer the Rams & Chargers so IMO, Kroenke's not selling and the financing for the new stadium even if they get public money includes Kroenke kicking in 250 million. Nobody has answered what if Kroenke does not want to kick in that amount?
They can't force him to sell the Rams, that's not what I'm saying. But they can definitely enforce rules about relocating that are draconian. I don't think Kroenke will be allowed to move to LA if St. Louis comes up with the funding that it claims to be coming up with. That's what I'm saying. Then what is Stan going to do, try to make it work in St. Louis or try to buy another team and move them to LA. It sounds like from the owners that if St. Louis comes up with the funding then they will not allow them to leave.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
1. You forgot Oakland and San Diego to L.A. and Rams stay in St. Louis. I know you don't like it but that is in fact one of the scenarios that could happen regardless of the "actions speak louder than words" line. The fact still is out of all 3 cities St. Louis is the only one with a viable stadium plan and very likely have their portion of the funding situated by the end of the year.
2. Not everybody will be happy no matter what happens.
It's that pesky 4th city and it's stadium that's the problem for StL.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
It's that pesky 4th city and it's stadium that's the problem for StL.
Very true! My problem with the original comment was the poster was presenting everything as if the Rams in L.A. is the constant when that is up in the air as well. It's been stated so many times, but nobody knows what is going to happen. With that, the Rams staying in Stl and the Chargers/Raiders in the Carson City Stadium needs to be listed as a scenario as well. It doesn't matter what our opinions are, the scenarios are what they are.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
They can't force him to sell the Rams, that's not what I'm saying. But they can definitely enforce rules about relocating that are draconian. I don't think Kroenke will be allowed to move to LA if St. Louis comes up with the funding that it claims to be coming up with. That's what I'm saying. Then what is Stan going to do, try to make it work in St. Louis or try to buy another team and move them to LA. It sounds like from the owners that if St. Louis comes up with the funding then they will not allow them to leave.
They are only proposing 1/2 the funds required and need those bond extensions too. What about the other 1/2? If I were a betting man....
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
They are only proposing 1/2 the funds required and need those bond extensions too. What about the other 1/2? If I were a betting man....

Let me finish your though. If I were a betting man, Stan would be wise to invest that little amount of money in a new stadium in St. Louis if his relocation is voted down.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
They can't force him to sell the Rams, that's not what I'm saying. But they can definitely enforce rules about relocating that are draconian. I don't think Kroenke will be allowed to move to LA if St. Louis comes up with the funding that it claims to be coming up with. That's what I'm saying. Then what is Stan going to do, try to make it work in St. Louis or try to buy another team and move them to LA. It sounds like from the owners that if St. Louis comes up with the funding then they will not allow them to leave.
To be honest, it sounds like the owners will keep St. Louis an NFL city if they come up with the funding. Could mean St. Louis Rams, St. Louis Raiders, or whatever.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Now I can say without doubt that yours is wishful thinking as most of your posts are laced with LA bias. Not saying the Inglewood stadium won't get done, but "If the Chargers and Raiders move to LA, they're going to play in the Inglewood stadium Stan is building. No matter what that stadium is going to get built"? Stop it, dude. Try to have a little objectivity when it comes to this thing. If that stadium doesn't get done somehow you're going to fall on your ass really hard because you're way up in the clouds. Regardless of how small it is, there is a chance that the LA stadium doesn't go through Kroenke.


Apparently he's not alone in this opinion.


EARTH CITY, Mo. -- I meant to get this in the Ram-blings sooner but in case it slid under the radar, Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune had a chance to catch up with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones last week in Arizona.

Jones was on my list of owners to speak with but each time I approached him, he told me he'd be available later. Turned out, I missed out on that as I began my travel home. Regardless, as you'd expect from Jones, he didn't hold back when he was quizzed about the latest on the potential for NFL relocation to Los Angeles.

Most eye-catching, though not surprising for anyone paying attention, was this quote:

“That stadium is going to get built," Jones told Acee. "I know that. I don’t know about any others, but that stadium will be built.”

"That" stadium he's referring to is Stan Kroenke's project in Inglewood, California, the one that could be the future home of the St. Louis Rams. The story goes on to cite others speaking on the subject, including a couple I talked to such as league executive Eric Grubman and New York Giants owner John Mara.

The overall sense coming out of the story and the sense I got, as I wrote multiple times last week, is that Kroenke's project is rolling down the tracks and is going to be very difficult for the league to turn down when the time comes. Other owners expressed similar sentiments as well, though not as openly as Jones.

There's still a lot that must take place before any of this becomes official, but it's clear that May's owners meetings should offer further movement.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...am-blings-jerry-jones-talks-inglewood-project
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,497
Name
Dennis
They can't force him to sell the Rams, that's not what I'm saying. But they can definitely enforce rules about relocating that are draconian. I don't think Kroenke will be allowed to move to LA if St. Louis comes up with the funding that it claims to be coming up with. That's what I'm saying. Then what is Stan going to do, try to make it work in St. Louis or try to buy another team and move them to LA. It sounds like from the owners that if St. Louis comes up with the funding then they will not allow them to leave.

All great points I guess we will see how it plays out. If he did sell locally I would be on board for Dave Peacock being COO.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
They are only proposing 1/2 the funds required and need those bond extensions too. What about the other 1/2? If I were a betting man....
That's all the NFL wants to see, though. It has been said many, many times through the national media that it would be bad for the NFL to turn it's back on a city that is willing to come up with around $500 million dollars to build a new stadium.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Let me finish your though. If I were a betting man, Stan would be wise to invest that little amount of money in a new stadium in St. Louis if his relocation is voted down.
Not what I was thinking but it definitely would be if he get's voted down.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Apparently he's not alone in this opinion.


EARTH CITY, Mo. -- I meant to get this in the Ram-blings sooner but in case it slid under the radar, Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune had a chance to catch up with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones last week in Arizona.

Jones was on my list of owners to speak with but each time I approached him, he told me he'd be available later. Turned out, I missed out on that as I began my travel home. Regardless, as you'd expect from Jones, he didn't hold back when he was quizzed about the latest on the potential for NFL relocation to Los Angeles.

Most eye-catching, though not surprising for anyone paying attention, was this quote:

“That stadium is going to get built," Jones told Acee. "I know that. I don’t know about any others, but that stadium will be built.”

"That" stadium he's referring to is Stan Kroenke's project in Inglewood, California, the one that could be the future home of the St. Louis Rams. The story goes on to cite others speaking on the subject, including a couple I talked to such as league executive Eric Grubman and New York Giants owner John Mara.

The overall sense coming out of the story and the sense I got, as I wrote multiple times last week, is that Kroenke's project is rolling down the tracks and is going to be very difficult for the league to turn down when the time comes. Other owners expressed similar sentiments as well, though not as openly as Jones.

There's still a lot that must take place before any of this becomes official, but it's clear that May's owners meetings should offer further movement.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...am-blings-jerry-jones-talks-inglewood-project
It's still an opinion, is the point. It isn't fact. Never said the opinion is wrong as there isn't such a thing. There are also many who have the opinion that if the Stl Stadium is built, the Rams won't move. Does it make it correct? Nope, but it is something that can happen.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
To be honest, it sounds like the owners will keep St. Louis an NFL city if they come up with the funding. Could mean St. Louis Rams, St. Louis Raiders, or whatever.

Maybe. But, both logic and the path of least resistance is keep the Rams in the Lou and move the Chargers and Raiders. Also, remember that the Chargers said they could feasibly do Carson by themselves.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Maybe. But, both logic and the path of least resistance is keep the Rams in the Lou and move the Chargers and Raiders. Also, remember that the Chargers said they could feasibly do Carson by themselves.
Yep, I'm with you. Just trying to be as objective as possible when it comes to this stuff. I'm Pro Stl to the heart, but I try to keep some objectivity.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
That's all the NFL wants to see, though. It has been said many, many times through the national media that it would be bad for the NFL to turn it's back on a city that is willing to come up with around $500 million dollars to build a new stadium.
True. I keep forgetting that because it's only 1/2 of what's needed. I guess the NFL bylaw is predicated on the "we'll meet you half way" line of thinking.
So now do they force the other half out of one of their own?
Do you really think they would do that and blow off the best stadium fix in the nations 2nd largest market with a built in fan base in one fell swoop?
Staying put is the more righteous, human thing to do for sure.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Now I can say without doubt that yours is wishful thinking as most of your posts are laced with LA bias. Not saying the Inglewood stadium won't get done, but "If the Chargers and Raiders move to LA, they're going to play in the Inglewood stadium Stan is building. No matter what that stadium is going to get built"? Stop it, dude. Try to have a little objectivity when it comes to this thing. If that stadium doesn't get done somehow you're going to fall on your ass really hard because you're way up in the clouds. Regardless of how small it is, there is a chance that the LA stadium doesn't go through Kroenke.
I can't say for sure the Rams are moving but I could say the Inglewood stadium is going to get built. Stan has bought the land, payed the Inglewood city council money, payed the designers money, and no he hasn't payed a video edit guy to render a stadium and make a video like how carson did. He payed real money to the designers. That's a big difference.

The people involved in the stadium are saying that they're going to build this thing no matter what. The Carson stadium is only going to get build if only a team commits, similar to the riverfront stadium.

They're literally moving dirt and preparing to break ground as soon as they get the permits. Permits aren't free.

As of right now 3/31/15. The only stadium in the city's of SD,OAK,STL,Carson and Inglewood that is in the process of getting permits to break ground and HAS the funding in place is Inglewood. Now all that could change by tomorrow and I could sing a different tune but that's a fact as of today.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.