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.

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
You could look at the Rams playing in Oxnard anyway you want.

At the end of the day it pisses of STL Rams and it promotes the Rams in LA. It also gets people in LA excited about the possibility the Rams moving to LA.

Is that a fact or not?
 

Rabid Ram

Legend
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
7,360
Name
Dustin
No no you got me all wrong. He said that the Rams playing in Oxnard is not something to pee pee STL Rams fans and I said that has already happened on Jan 5.
And he responded to you perfectly by telling you why he believes that day you claim as a horrible to St louis fans as a possibly a great day since it kicked St louis officials in gear
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Was just throwing it out there as an example that the stadium could end up as somthing else. Personally im just pointing out that it makes no sense to read so far into a practice while others wanna put the cart before the horse over a practice with the cowboys

I agree that the stadium can be something else, but if they DO build the stadium, it wont be for soccer, it'll be for the Rams. He gave himself an out with more residential areas (I believe that's what the out is) so he's not locked into the stadium yet. As for the Oxford practice, I also agree that nobody should read too far into the Oxford practice, but I wouldn't say that it makes no sense to read into it. It's not an accident, the team knows what they're doing, so it's logical for people to connect the dots there. It doesn't mean that they're definitely moving, but it likely gives Stan more ammo when it comes time for voting, and that in itself is key. It doesn't mean he's leaving, but it strengthens his position to do so if he wants to.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
I don't think I do but you can prove me wrong with how you post in respect to keeping the fans in St Louis in mind with what you say.
I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove to me how I was disrespectful to the ppl in STL.
 

Rabid Ram

Legend
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
7,360
Name
Dustin
You could look at the Rams playing in Oxnard anyway you want.

At the end of the day it pisses of STL Rams and it promotes the Rams in LA. It also gets people in LA excited about the possibility the Rams moving to LA.

Is that a fact or not?

Not fact at all its entirety YOUR personal opinion
 

Rabid Ram

Legend
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
7,360
Name
Dustin
I agree that the stadium can be something else, but if they DO build the stadium, it wont be for soccer, it'll be for the Rams. He gave himself an out with more residential areas (I believe that's what the out is) so he's not locked into the stadium yet. As for the Oxford practice, I also agree that nobody should read too far into the Oxford practice, but I wouldn't say that it makes no sense to read into it. It's not an accident, the team knows what they're doing, so it's logical for people to connect the dots there. It doesn't mean that they're definitely moving, but it likely gives Stan more ammo when it comes time for voting, and that in itself is key. It doesn't mean he's leaving, but it strengthens his position to do so if he wants to.

I agree with your assessment blue I threw out soccer cause it was the first random thing that came to mind

However I just think it's careless to run around callin opinions fact
 
Last edited:

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,116
Name
Stu
You could look at the Rams playing in Oxnard anyway you want.

At the end of the day it pisses of STL Rams and it promotes the Rams in LA. It also gets people in LA excited about the possibility the Rams moving to LA.

Is that a fact or not?
I'm going to let you determine your own fate. If you can't see how what you said would be inflaming St Louis fans, it appears that I won't be able to help you. I'm not even in St Louis and I had a problem with it.
I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove to me how I was disrespectful to the ppl in STL.
Actually I don't.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm done discussing this with you. Knock off the absolutes and claims of fact because it has been well established that no one here - including you - knows for sure what will happen in Inglewood, Carson, or St Louis.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I agree with your assessment blue I just think it's careless to run around callin opinions fact

Well yeah, I wouldn't do that either. You're talking to the guy who answered essay questions that essentially boiled down to "it depends". It used to piss off my professors. That's why I love science, I typically don't have to answer with a fact, because they can change at anytime with new research. Gives me a convenient out.(y)
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
That is certainly your opinion of which you are entitled to but I firmly believe you and Alot of others are just reading way to far into things because there's nothing better to and others for trolling intent. What ever the purpose I think it's ridiculous to believe a PRACTICE is the Rams saying hey St louis fans go fornicate yourselves.

You are entitled to believe what you what as well. I think its a tad naive, but oh well.


I'm going to choose to ignore the fact that you basically called me a troll with nothing to do just because I don't agree with you.
 

Rabid Ram

Legend
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
7,360
Name
Dustin
I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove to me how I was disrespectful to the ppl in STL.
You are entitled to believe what you what as well. I think its a tad naive, but oh well.


I'm going to choose to ignore the fact that you basically called me a troll with nothing to do just because I don't agree with you.
No sorry maybe poorly typed out but by no means did I mean you to be a troll. Just that this topic has brought them out with nothing but intentionally to inflame
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
So, tomorrow is a big day since all the principles involved in our thread topic here are gathering and making what appears to be their 'formal' pitches. The way the common senses are flowing, the Peacock pitch has to be solid as hell. Is it enough?
Is the scrutiny on the relocating proposer greater than that of the city trying to keep their team? Are there mitigating factors (ie: arbitration) ?

The new direction of the league could be determined in the minds of the owners as early as tomorrow, so the angst for all is totally understandable.
We are all Rams brothers who have had our attentions diverted to the cities we call home. This wasn't possible back in the 90's. It's a drag.

Good luck to all!
GO RAMS !!
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,116
Name
Stu
In a nutshell, yes.
Whether she wanted to work it out in LA is debatable. She was tied to a lease for quite a few more years and couldn't get the upgrades she wanted. Whether her requests were realistic or unrealistic is important but her options were few.
The climate was bad for new stadiums on LA back then. The Coliseum is huge and home games were frequently blacked out due to the sheer size of the stadium. So returning there was not an option.
She wanted more and the only way she could see it in her eyes (and the Shaw of Anaheim's eyes) was to move. Nobody or their brother believed it. Many still can't.

Stan wants more and he want's to relocate too.

The little part about being born there to miss StL 1929 might have something to do with it too, but who knows.

On March 15, 1995, the National Football League owners rejected Ms. Frontiere's bid to move the franchise to St. Louis, Missouri by a 21–3–6 vote.
A month later after her threats, 6 owners remained in opposition to the Rams move from Los Angeles: the Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills, Arizona Cardinals, and Washington Redskins.

Aren't many of theses guys or their relatives on the current NFL advisory panel?
Man. You realize how painful it is reliving all this? And yeah - most of the current relocation committee (or whatever they call it) seem to be comprised of reps from those teams. I wonder though how that would affect any decision or suggestion they would make.

BTW - one thing I think you omitted was at the time of the move, Shaw was on the stadium committee and had inside knowledge of what St Louis was willing to offer. They originally had Baltimore pegged as where they wanted to go. I always felt that was akin to insider trading. Fast forward 20 years and I have to put myself in St Louis fans' shoes. Not a nice feeling and way too familiar.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,116
Name
Stu
So, tomorrow is a big day since all the principles involved in our thread topic gathering and making what appears to be their 'formal' pitch. The way the common senses are flowing, the Peacock pitch has to be solid as hell.
Is the scrutiny on the relocating proposer greater than that of the city trying to keep their team? Are there mitigating factors (ie: arbitration) ?

The new direction of the league could be determined in the minds of the owners as early as tomorrow, so the angst for all is totally understandable.
We are all Rams brothers who have had our attentions diverted to the cities we call home. This wasn't possible back in the 90's.

Good luck to all!
GO RAMS !!
Solid - Hack/saw. Wish I knew the answers to your questions though.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Did Carson make their vote yet, they are supposed to today aren't they?


Also I learned today that they may be forced to pull away from the project if they are unable to find a replacement location for 1500 housing units that was supposed to go on the land, which would lose them 1.4 million dollars annually from the federal government, plus offsite parking costs and other issues that may come up. The project is a lot stickier than Inglewood.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Did Carson make their vote yet, they are supposed to today aren't they?


Also I learned today that they may be forced to pull away from the project if they are unable to find a replacement location for 1500 housing units that was supposed to go on the land, which would lose them 1.4 million dollars annually from the federal government, plus offsite parking costs and other issues that may come up. The project is a lot stickier than Inglewood.
They're supposed to vote on it today. I haven't seen or heard anything yet but the vote should pass tonight.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,290
No. It is not a fact. As far as I understand, permits haven't been pulled or even yet applied for. Jan 5th may indeed go down as a very good day for St Louis fans as it may have kicked everyone in a higher gear and therefore brought about a quicker conclusion to the stadium issues. Hard to say at this point.

As far as what stadium gets built where, no, it doesn't matter what you or I say. But as far as this forum and the Rams fans in both camps, yes it does matter.

I would think the permits haven't been applied for because the blueprints are not complete. I would think they are in the midst of completing the foundation plans so they can be submitted by June/ July and have permits by August/ September.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Presentation to NFL caps big week for St. Louis stadium project
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_d84afce9-65cb-5b71-aab8-56c229745383.html

A big week for the St. Louis stadium project continues Wednesday with a presentation by Dave Peacock to members of the NFL's Los Angeles opportunities committee and league officials in New York.

"I'm not going into that too much because we're going to wait till we get out, but I am excited," said Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch executive who is spearheading the riverfront stadium project on the north edge of downtown.

"I think anybody from St. Louis who's been involved in this project is excited about the opportunity to show it off. And we've got a good plan."

Nothing will be decided on or voted upon by the committee Wednesday. But the day's significance lies in the fact that it's the first time the league will see a formal presentation on the St. Louis stadium plan. It reinforces the fact that the process is real and that St. Louis has made progress.

Odd as it may sound, the LA committee is also charged with evaluating the St. Louis stadium proposal. Besides Peacock presenting the St. Louis plan, representatives from the Rams, the Oakland Raiders, and San Diego Chargers will make presentations on their stadium proposals in the Los Angeles area.

Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build a stadium in Inglewood. It's not know if it'll be Kroenke, executive vice president Kevin Demoff, or someone else making the Inglewood presentation. But past Inglewood presentations have been made by a group including Rams officials, developers, and architects.

The Chargers and Raiders, meanwhile, have teamed up on a competing LA stadium project in Carson.

When Peacock makes his presentation in New York, he will be able to provide specifics on the St. Louis construction "lineup," as a result of Monday evening's announcement that Hunt Construction Group and Clayco, Inc., will jointly serve as construction manager for the $985 million project.

Hunt/Clayco lead a joint venture that also includes KAI Design & Build, Legacy Building Group, and Kwame Building Group.

"This is a huge step," Peacock said. "If you talk about building a stadium, forgetting you need league approval and all that, this is the second-biggest step – since hiring the designer. You've got to design it, and then you've got to build it."

Peacock said it was coincidental that the construction manager was hired before Wednesday's presentations at league headquarters in New York. The two-month hiring process was well under way before the St. Louis task force was invited by the league to make a presentation.

For now, Hunt/Clayco and the other companies involved are limited to planning the construction phase and refining cost estimates as St. Louis works toward league approval. Not to mention assurances of having an NFL team in town, be it the Rams or another franchise.

"We're gonna be really relentless in our management of costs," Peacock said. "It's one of the things at least I learned from the A-B background. The smarter you are on your costs, the more efficient you're gonna be."

Even a two percent savings on materials could lead to a savings of $10 million, Peacock said.

An important feature of the construction manager selection process was minority participation. Legacy and Kwame are both minority-owned businesses, and the task force's mandate was a construction workforce employing 25 percent minority business enterprise contracts, 5 percent woman-owned firms, and 3 percent firms owned by veterans and veterans with disabilities.

"We have long said that this project is more than a stadium, we need to use it as an opportunity to improve our region," Peacock said. "If creating not just jobs, but careers through training and through minority participation, is something that comes out of this project it's something that we're gonna be committed to make happen."

According to the task force, construction of the new stadium would create more than 5,000 jobs over a four-year period.

"That's a lot of hours available to put people to work," Peacock said. "It's a big priority for us to source as much of the labor here in our market, and to ensure that we've got more than adequate minority representation."
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,427
Name
Wes
image.jpg

Sweet. I'll take this as good news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.