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.

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Finally someone speaking with a StL angle. I would imagine that NFL execs and the relocating owners would be sitting at a table discussing it though. Or is Clayton implying that the NFL is in cahoots with Spanos?

If he is implying "cahoots" that's called collusion and it would be serious issue.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,810
Name
Stu
I was thinking the same thing as far as the MLS goes. Imo, they didn't award a team to any city (LA wasn't the only one, btw) over St. Louis as they don't even have a venue to house them at the moment. True, they are expanding in 2020, but they evidently wanted to award the teams now and how can you give St. Louis a team without knowing for certain that the Riverfront stadium will be built?
Didn't it say that the LA venue is yet to be built as well? So they awarded LA with a team before having a venue in place - no? Also, a 22,000 seat venue being built for the new LA club tells me that the MLS may be more interested in smaller intimate venues. IIRR - that is about the same size as the other MLS LA soccer only venue.
 
Last edited:

Big Willie

Starter
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
763
I'm sure we do. That's ok though - I love yuh even though you're so wrong headed.

I can say that it all sucks with how teams have moved around but it's not unlike Boeing moving much of their former facilities out of the Portland area. That is just the business end. I am not a fan for the business end.

Now the problem comes in in that I became a Rams fan as I also became a Dodgers, Lakers, and Kings fan. So obviously the city ties are there. But once I set in with my team, that was it. I even tried watching other teams after the Rams left LA. I just couldn't do it. As soon as I saw the horns again - I was done. And I can say this as kind of a neutral market guy. I just couldn't cheer for another team. Even though I generally liked the AFC Seahawks, and the region I now live in primarily considers itself Shitchicken territory, I just could never make the leap to really caring that much about them. I even went to a shitchickens vs Chefs game with a bunch of Seattle fans. I found myself excited by big plays - not who was making them.

I understand your city first approach and I even applaud how you have explained it. I'm more of a nationalist I suppose at this point as I have moved around quite a bit.

I agree with your approach, but, the challenge in St Louis is the team we ended with played in the same division as the team we lost (now the Arizona Cardinals). When we didn't have a team in St Louis, the Cardinals got great TV ratings. Once the St Louis Rams and Cardinals competed....the hate ensued. I grew up a football Cardinals fan...can't root for them now.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The question that hasn't been raised about the minority interest that Davis said he would sell to stay in Oakland, What if some local St Louis buyer put's up 400 million, would he move to St Louis?

Except he has no interest in moving the team or selling it...and has continued to repeat that sentiment
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Finally someone speaking with a StL angle. I would imagine that NFL execs and the relocating owners would be sitting at a table discussing it though. Or is Clayton implying that the NFL is in cahoots with Spanos?


certainly seems to be the vibe being reported lately - that spanos has a lot of favor with the other owners for doing things "the right way"
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I agree with your approach, but, the challenge in St Louis is the team we ended with played in the same division as the team we lost (now the Arizona Cardinals). When we didn't have a team in St Louis, the Cardinals got great TV ratings. Once the St Louis Rams and Cardinals competed....the hate ensued. I grew up a football Cardinals fan...can't root for them now.

interesting point - i wonder how many Ram fans would become rivals based on how the owner has conducted himself. The sentiment and proof is there - all one has to do is look at the cardinals (lol on a side note my dad represented one of the bidwells years ago,think the son, guessing in st.louis.....doesnt have anything positive to say about that family, and they definitely meet their perception of being notoriously cheap)
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
No he said he was interested in selling a minority position

yet repeatedly shot down moving the team out of Oakland - and even said an owner isn't being brought in for a stadium help

The Raiders are willing to sell a minority stake in the franchise, owner Mark Davis said on Wednesday afternoon following the NFL owners meetings.

While that could entice a private investor to help facilitate construction of a new, local stadium for a franchise stuck in the past-its-prime O.co Coliseum, Davis said the franchise’s willingness to sell shares is not designed solely with a venue in mind. Davis said an available stake could bring in a new partner who could help the franchise in several ways.

“It’s not to bridge the funding gap (for an Oakland stadium), but it would be to bring somebody in that would want to participate on both sides of the equation,” Davis said. “That’s always been available.”


It’s uncertain whether that will happen, but the Raiders are open to it.

Davis told reporters on Tuesday that he would not sell a majority share of the team under any circumstances, and that he would be the team’s majority owner “for the rest of my life.”

With no interest on moving to St.Louis, as has been said multiple times
 

Big Willie

Starter
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
763
interesting point - i wonder how many Ram fans would become rivals based on how the owner has conducted himself. The sentiment and proof is there - all one has to do is look at the cardinals (lol on a side note my dad represented one of the bidwells years ago,think the son, guessing in st.louis.....doesnt have anything positive to say about that family, and they definitely meet their perception of being notoriously cheap)
Yeah...what happens if the Chargers and Raiders move to LA and there is divisional realignment with the Chargers and Rams in the NFC West or the LA Raiders and St Louis Rams in the AFC West? Alligencies will be tested.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Yeah...what happens if the Chargers and Raiders move to LA and there is divisional realignment with the Chargers and Rams in the NFC West or the LA Raiders and St Louis Rams in the AFC West? Alligencies will be tested.

Only thing I will say that is - don't hold your breath on a Raiders-Niners in the same division... that won't happen,imo. goodell didn't ban preseason games between these two to move them into a division playing twice a year

outside of that - i think they'll do the best to keep rivalries intact - they draw ratings and ticket sales
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Didn't it say that the LA venue is yet to be built as well? So they awarded LA with a team before having a venue in place - no? Also, a 22,000 seat venue being built for the new LA club tells me that the MLS may be more interested in smaller intimate venues. IIRR - that is about the same size as the other MLS LA soccer only venue.

I believe the MLS said they didn't like the fact St Louis wanted them to piggyback on an NFL stadium due to the size. They would rather have dedicated MLS stadiums. I don't think they decided against St Louis, but I think they'd rather see the stadium be built or at least ready to be built. In the case of LA, it's not really a new team, but a rebranding of a team the MLS folded.

Jorge Vergara, the owner of a Mexican soccer team owned the MLS team, Chivas USA, in LA and he was running it into the ground as soon as he took over in 2012. Fired people who weren't Latino, or didn't speak Spanish, only wanted players who were Mexican or of Mexican decent, fired a bunch of coaches, just had a lot of problems. The MLS bought the team from the owner, folded it, and sold it to some private investors so they can restart the team in 2017 with their own stadium (instead of sharing with the Galaxy).
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
yet repeatedly shot down moving the team out of Oakland - and even said an owner isn't being brought in for a stadium help



With no interest on moving to St.Louis, as has been said multiple times

And how many times has someone said something isn't going to happen and then it does? Davis is not in a position to say much at all, and there's significant opinion out there that thinks a guy willing to talk with SA will talk with StL when his team loses the stadium sweepstakes.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And how many times has someone said something isn't going to happen and then it does? Davis is not in a position to say much at all, and there's significant opinion out there that thinks a guy willing to talk with SA will talk with StL when his team loses the stadium sweepstakes.

So then I guess we should believe Kroenke is going to sell the Rams

Nah I don't believe for a second Davis wants to, nor can afford, to move the Raiders to St.Louis - especially since he's going to keep controlling interest should someone come aboard.

There's significant opinion from everyone but the man who owns the team - whom btw said as far as LA goes "Raiders in LA?Oh I don't know..But i definitely want to do the best we can to stay oakland"

he left LA as a possibility - but continually has said a concrete no to a move to St.Louis.

And I'm also not sure what stake holder can afford to purchase a small share, then pay for the riverfront stadium (450 from owner) + relocation fees + cost of moving

it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking at best... this is with everyone ignoring the fact that he has continually said no to st.louis, and left LA open as a possibility
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
MLS awarded LA with another club over STL. LA is just that big of a town and it is a sports town. The LA Galaxy is the premier soccer club in America and were awarded with a another. I'm not bragging but it goes to show you how the NFL and other leagues view LA. The NFL might not need LA just like how MLS doesn't need LA they both want LA, that's the difference.

What does this have to do with anything or than stirring the pot?

STL wasn't even considered. No stadium plan for MLS was put forward, and no ownership group has come forward. Tell me why you would compare LA to STL in MLS when there wasn't even a bid from STL? There was nothing to award to LA over STL.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
NFL begins work on setting relocation fee
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_39984689-79b3-55e0-b5e0-ab66785e9b10.html

In another indication of the growing momentum to have an NFL team in Los Angeles, the league has begun the process of establishing a relocation fee for the team — or teams — that might move to LA for the 2016 season.

“We’ve engaged an outside firm to help us look at various ways to analyze it,” NFL executive Eric Grubman said at least week’s owners meetings in San Francisco. “Which is not to say our finance staff is not capable of doing any of the analysis. But sometimes it’s good to have an independent mind take a look at it.”

The fee, Grubman said, could vary from market to market. The Rams in St. Louis, the Chargers in San Diego, and the Raiders in Oakland are all eyeing a possible move to LA after the 2015 season. When all is said and done, there could be a formula developed to set the fee. Or there simply could just be a flat fee determined.

“We’re not very far along in that,” Grubman said. “It’s sort of designing the analysis, and we’re debating the different ways that it could be looked at and the different time frames that could be looked at.”

The relocation fee is designed to compensate club owners for allowing another team to move into a new, lucrative market and basically gets split up among the other teams. It has been estimated that the relocation fee for a Rams move back to LA could be in excess of $500 million for team owner Stan Kroenke.

Grubman said any relocation fee probably wouldn’t be determined until very near the end of the entire relocation process.

“Anybody’s who’s getting into it or asking for a vote would be understanding of what it is,” Grubman said.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
What happens to the riverfront if the stadium proposal fails? 'Plan B'
547927cdc503d.preview-300.jpg


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_0ae783de-71fc-53ee-aca3-d5acc0959c7d.html

37 minutes ago • By David Hunn
ST. LOUIS • Area leaders are working on a plan to redevelop 180 acres of riverfront real estate just north of downtown — with or without a new football stadium.

They call it “Plan B.”

The project has been in the works for months. It envisions residential towers, hotels, shops, a high-tech business incubator, plus wetlands, green space and parks stretching more than a mile, from the Gateway Arch grounds to the new river bridge. The plan even proposes floating-barge beer gardens and playgrounds.

Regional officials have been quietly peddling it to key interest groups. One night last week, some of the project’s planners met with downtown businesses and landowners. Their message was simple: With a stadium, or without, this is a unique opportunity to spur development on the riverfront.

Doug Woodruff, the second-year president of the downtown business association Downtown STL Inc., called it an effort “critical to the region, whether there’s a football team and a stadium or not.”

“It’s our one chance — our one chance as a region — to develop virtually 90 acres, on one of the world’s great rivers, next to one of the world’s great monuments,” he told the 35 or 40 members in attendance.

City and regional leaders, including Woodruff — whose organization has been hired to piece together land for the proposed stadium — insist the region must be prepared to buy the land, and soon.

Officially, however, work on this riverfront proposal started before there was ever a Plan A.

Last summer, Great Rivers Greenway, the regional tax-supported trails organization, put out a call to study business redevelopment and trail building on the riverfront, from Laclede’s Landing past the new Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge.

In November, the Greenway board picked Forum Studio from 11 bidders for the $332,000 contract. It included a blighting study — which could be used to seize land through eminent domain. Forum teamed with several consultants, among them Access Engineering, David Mason & Associates, and local market analyst Bob Lewis.

Then, in January, Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force announced plans for an open-air football stadium, smack in the middle of the 180 acres being studied. The plan, said Edward Jones Dome attorney Bob Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President Dave Peacock, was to build a $985 million stadium, and keep the Rams from leaving St. Louis. So the riverfront plan adapted.

“If the stadium plan was there before I was there, I did not know it,” said Susan Trautman, executive director of the trails district. “The north riverfront was on my radar from the day I was hired.”

As soon as Trautman knew the stadium effort was real, she said, Great Rivers and Forum began planning on two tracks: one with a stadium and one without.

Otis Williams, executive director of the city’s development corporation, said this will require a public-private partnership. It’s a little like Cortex, the new technology district near the Central West End, he said. It took 20 years to develop.

“If the stadium is there we can build up around it,” said Williams, whose agency has sent Great Rivers $82,000 to help pay for the Forum study. They could turn stadium parking lots, for instance, into garages with first-floor retail.

“Redevelopment in this corridor will happen. It’s not a plan that will sit on the shelf,” he said. “Grade us in two to three years. That will be the real scorecard.”

If successful, it would be the first commercial riverfront redevelopment of this scale in Mayor Francis Slay’s 14-year tenure. “It’s really exciting,” said Mary Ellen Ponder, Slay’s chief of staff.

Landowners are less enthusiastic. Some like Plan B better than a stadium; some don’t. Others just want something — anything — to work out.

John Reinsch, operations manager at his family’s company, Sonn Signs, said the stadium team asked about his century-old brick warehouse on Lewis Street, a block from the floodwall.

He wasn’t thrilled. “Their initial offer was considerably lower than what we expected,” Reinsch said. The representative also wanted Reinsch to sign an “option,” paying him a percentage of the final purchase price as a promise to hold the land for later sale.

Reinsch didn’t understand: If area officials insist the land must be secured for the good of future redevelopment, then why, he asked, wouldn’t they purchase the land outright?

Some have signed. Patrick McKay, a Hilliker real estate vice president, said he represents a family with a building on North First Street. “It’s not like people were flocking down there anyway,” he said.

Seamus McGowan, co-owner of a warehouse there, wouldn’t say. But he’s skeptical of the business park idea. “Until we can bring new businesses to St. Louis, I don’t think that’s a need,” he said.

Reinsch said he declined the deal. His family is considering a counteroffer.

“I understand they’re very early in the planning stage, but I think there are a lot of questions still,” he said.

Woodruff, the Downtown STL exec, wouldn’t reveal any details of the work. Craig Heller, a developer Woodruff has contracted to compile the land, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
So then I guess we should believe Kroenke is going to sell the Rams

Nah I don't believe for a second Davis wants to, nor can afford, to move the Raiders to St.Louis - especially since he's going to keep controlling interest should someone come aboard.

There's significant opinion from everyone but the man who owns the team - whom btw said as far as LA goes "Raiders in LA?Oh I don't know..But i definitely want to do the best we can to stay oakland"

he left LA as a possibility - but continually has said a concrete no to a move to St.Louis.

And I'm also not sure what stake holder can afford to purchase a small share, then pay for the riverfront stadium (450 from owner) + relocation fees + cost of moving

it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking at best... this is with everyone ignoring the fact that he has continually said no to st.louis, and left LA open as a possibility

I guess we shouldn't bother building a new stadium since it's an obvious bluff. After all, he SAID he wasn't going to move the Rams.

Anything is possible at this point. I don't see how anyone can discount anything as out of the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.