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.

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Yeah man. It was not an attempt to belittle what you were saying. Just a weak attempt at humor. Hope it at least gave you a smirk. I think we need to maybe poke a little fun at virtually all the arguments going on here.

So to everybody...
MY aruments are valid!!!
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that if the market studies do indeed show there isn't very much corporate support in St Louis, the city is going to need to come up with a solution that satisfies the owners, and simply saying that the team on the field is why probably isn't going to cut it.
OK, after reading this, I am firmly convinced we will never agree on this subject.

Kroenke: "I know the team has gone 7-8-1, 7-9 and 6-10 since I took full ownership. I know that the franchise experienced the worst stretch of losing in their history while I was part owner.
But, gentlemen, I'd like you to understand that those events had nothing to do with dwindling support the past year. There simply is no correlation."

Good luck, Stan.. if that's the argument.

Done with this angle...
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Too many pages ago... but it was brought up that the Rams support has been waning of late.

I suggested that maybe it was due to the product...

You continue to suggest improvement ought to be enough to stop the slide... that this improvement might help Kroenke suggest he's leaving because, despite improving the product, support continues to fall.

I (and others) are suggesting that, despite "improvement", the product is still lacking enough that there isn't a compelling reason for corporations to continue to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for a suite that people aren't inclined to visit because the product on the field is lacking... despite the "improvement".

In other words, there hasn't been enough improvement to cause a ground swell of support (yet)... either at the consumer or corporate level.

To think people (consumers and corporations) should continue to spend considerable amounts of money on a team that has gone backwards the past three years is hard for me to grasp.

You're a corporate suite holder and you're having trouble entertaining customers because they don't want to come to the games because the team has gone 7-8-1, 7-9 and 6-10 the past three years.
You wouldn't seriously consider selling that suite? Y
ou'd keep paying thousands for an empty suite?
I'm thinking not?

One last thought... at least in the case of the suites, those are not "fans"... they don't live on "potential"... many do not drink kool-aid... they want to be part of a winner!

I think if part of Kroenke's case for leaving is that he's improved this product so much but the support is still not strong... well, I think he'd be barking at the moon.

The teams performance has more to do with regular attendance where as corporate support is based on the available advertising in a community for sporting events. Companies only have a budget for a certain amount of events. After I left LA and moved to Texas, I worked for a large multi national and we had a budget dedicated to the sponsorships. We a had a fixed budget that was allocated to 3 teams, suite for NFL, 1/2 season suite & floor seats for NBA and club seats for MLB. I also had a discretionary budget for single game tickets in my market and in other cities. The easiest event for entertaining was the NFL. The team was horrible but I could fill the box in a few hours. The NBA team and the MLB both were in the playoffs ever year but it would take days to fill the seats. The company had similar arrangements in cities across the country and when the budgets were cut the only one that wasn't adjusted was for the NFL.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
"Arguably no franchise in America has worked harder over the last few years to connect with and impact its community as extensively and consistently as the Rams have. As the team continues to ascend on the field, the stout efforts away from it will be recognized and appreciated by more and more of the region’s residents." Shane Gray

http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/02/rams-community-work-puts-future-fan-at-forefront/

"The Rams have continually expanded their community efforts and outreach since Kroenke took over in 2010. As led by Demoff, the organization became the first team in the city’s history to win its Philanthropic of the Year award. The Rams’ community initiatives are some of the league’s most extensive. They have been done in part to grow the “next-generation fan,” according to Brian Killingsworth of the club’s front office. It would seem odd to constantly increase efforts in this community if it were planning to uproot from it." Shane Gray

http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/rams-stadium-and-relocation-prospects-not-as-they-seem/
I'd like to see what they do this year... training in Oxnard with the Cowboys seems like a solid start!
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Chargers, Raiders meet with L.A. officials about stadium
7/1/2015 5:49:54 AM

Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis were in Los Angeles on Tuesday, meeting with Mayor Eric Garcetti and other political heavyweights and promoting their vision for a shared stadium in Carson, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times reports.

A spokesman for Garcetti confirmed the meeting and said the mayor "would welcome a team anywhere in the Los Angeles area."

"While Mayor Garcetti frequently meets with companies looking to do business in Los Angeles, we are mindful that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams are still actively discussing stadium deals in their current cities and the NFL has not yet approved a team moving," Jeff Millman said.

Spanos and Davis also had meetings with L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson and County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, as well as Carson Mayor Albert Robles and Carson City Atty. Sunny Soltani.

NFL owners will convene in August for a special meeting regarding the L.A. situation. The Carson plan is competing with a proposal by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who intends to build a stadium in Inglewood.

http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescr...ith-L-A--officials-about-stadium/Default.aspx
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I'd like to see what they do this year... training in Oxnard with the Cowboys seems like a solid start!

This year won't be a determining factor for any of the 3 teams.

What it shows to the NFL that the team put extensive amount of work into the market to increase community support but that work didn't increase attendance or revenues. Is it a fair barometer of what's actually going on probably not but this is the NFL and they want the teams to show that they tried.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Too many pages ago... but it was brought up that the Rams support has been waning of late.

I suggested that maybe it was due to the product...

You continue to suggest improvement ought to be enough to stop the slide... that this improvement might help Kroenke suggest he's leaving because, despite improving the product, support continues to fall.

I (and others) are suggesting that, despite "improvement", the product is still lacking enough that there isn't a compelling reason for corporations to continue to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for a suite that people aren't inclined to visit because the product on the field is lacking... despite the "improvement".

In other words, there hasn't been enough improvement to cause a ground swell of support (yet)... either at the consumer or corporate level.

To think people (consumers and corporations) should continue to spend considerable amounts of money on a team that has gone backwards the past three years is hard for me to grasp.

You're a corporate suite holder and you're having trouble entertaining customers because they don't want to come to the games because the team has gone 7-8-1, 7-9 and 6-10 the past three years.
You wouldn't seriously consider selling that suite? Y
ou'd keep paying thousands for an empty suite?
I'm thinking not?

One last thought... at least in the case of the suites, those are not "fans"... they don't live on "potential"... many do not drink kool-aid... they want to be part of a winner!

I think if part of Kroenke's case for leaving is that he's improved this product so much but the support is still not strong... well, I think he'd be barking at the moon.

nice post.jpg
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I just have to respectfully disagree on the assumption that a man like Kroenke, who's clearly into the power thing, just sat back was was told "Stan, when we want your input, we'll ask you".

Fact is, neither of us know what was (or was not said) by Kroenke. But, reading about how he operates (he gets what he wants), I'm having a hard time believing he was this outsider and had nothing to do with the decisions that were made (bad decisions).

With all due respect to your uncle, just because it worked that was with Davis (who we know was a control freak), that doesn't mean that's how majority and minority owners always work. I mean, they don't discuss important issues? If the minority owner is very well regarded (as I'm sure Kroenke is), he/she is sumamarily dismissed because - well- them's the rules... you're a minority owner so you get no say? Just don't think it's that iron clad.

The "rules" may say one thing... but basic human interaction when lots of money is involved says another to me.

I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to convince me that Kroenke didn't get a say (regardless of the rules) and shouldn't be held accountable (at least in part) for the dismal record the team has had while he has had a stake in it.

One of the determining factors in choosing St Louis over Baltimore was that Shaw thought they could control Kroenke and that he wasn't pushing for a say in the teams operations. It could have changed over time but John Shaw had complete control over operations right up till Kroenke took over. Was he aware and have input probably but that doesn't mean he was making decisions.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2022 TOP Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
38,387
This is all speculation, right?
Right!

I don't know anything. None of this is news. Some of it is based off of tips from sources, but most of those are so old that they can barely be considered anything of value at this point. This is simply you living inside my fear-addled mind for a little while.

From that article Goose posted in case people didn't read it all the way through.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Stadium Watch: Floyd Kephart and the Raiders
Posted: Jun 30, 2015 9:00 PM CDTUpdated: Jun 30, 2015 9:00 PM CDT
By Steve Bosh

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) - The stadium financing plan in Oakland is the brainchild of Rancho Santa Fe Financier Floyd Kephart, who proposes a stadium with a mega-development that brings him riches at the expense of the Raiders.
At this point, the NFL doesn't see the Chargers or the Raiders, who play in the two oldest stadiums in the league, making any serious headway towards new stadiums in their home markets.

The Spanos negotiating team has left the bargaining table and Oakland's plan would decimate the Raiders franchise.

Here's a look at some of the basic elements of both plans.

Kephart is proposing a $4.2 billion development with a $900 million stadium for the Raiders.

The Raiders would have to sell Kephart 20 percent of the team.

The Raiders would borrow $300 million paid for with sponsorship and naming rights money.

The Raiders would get no development revenue and would have to put up $100 million of team money and basically self-financing the stadium.

Several sports business analysts said they couldn't recall a stadium deal where the owner financed and sold a piece of the team.

In San Diego, The stadium plan has Dean Spanos paying about 50 percent of the $1.2 billion stadium, including: $300 million from the team, $173 million in rent and $30 million from PSL's.

Hundreds of millions in sharing maintenance costs and assuming cost overruns. Two-thirds of Petco Park was taxpayer money and Spanos wants the same deal.

San Diego was warned by the NFL in April that its stadium plan was flawed. No doubt Oakland's will be viewed as the same.

Make no mistake. The stars are aligned for football returning to L.A. next year and delay and postponements will kill that momentum. On top of that, the league's relocation executive recently said reports of delaying relocation for another year are not accurate.

http://www.kusi.com/story/29447670/stadium-watch-floyd-kephart-and-the-raiders#.VZQAuXLRjV8.twitter
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
One of the determining factors in choosing St Louis over Baltimore was that Shaw thought they could control Kroenke and that he wasn't pushing for a say in the teams operations. It could have changed over time but John Shaw had complete control over operations right up till Kroenke took over. Was he aware and have input probably but that doesn't mean he was making decisions.

Wasn't the main determining factor the owner wanting to go to her hometown?
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip

EDITORIAL: JAY NIXON AS CHEERLEADER?
NFL STADIUM
Editorial: On stadium, Nixon turns in his clipboard for pom-poms
559315292104e.image.jpg

18 HOURS AGO • BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Our colleague Bernie Miklasz, award-winning sports columnist, put Gov. Jay Nixon’s role in the proposed new NFL stadium project in St. Louis in the proper perspective in a Feb. 13 column.

“Gov. Nixon fully engaged in the stadium,”read the headline.

“In many ways,” Mr. Miklasz wrote, “the St. Louis stadium is Nixon’s last campaign.”

None of the stadium discussions get this far if Mr. Nixon doesn’t appoint Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz to work on the project, he continues. Mr. Nixon is involved in direct meetings with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, writes Mr. Miklasz. Indeed, he continues, NFL officials “appreciate Nixon’s willingness to take action, saying it is rare for the governor of a state to be so extensively involved this early in the process.”

This is the “Nixon in charge” argument. It is the one most definitely promoted by those close to the governor, and, indeed, the governor himself. Mr. Nixon flew to St. Louis in early June for a series of interviews with sports media, telling Mr. Miklasz, “I’m the governor of the ‘Show-Me State,’ so our commitment has got to be shown (to the NFL). And it will be.”

Until now. Now Mr. Nixon is acting like he’s governor of the “Who, me? State.”

Last week, in response to a lawsuit brought by state lawmakers, including Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, Rep. Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, and Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, the governor’s lawyer, Attorney General Chris Koster, paints a different picture.

The lawsuit, with Mr. Barnes, an attorney, doing the legal work on behalf of his fellow lawmakers and the Missouri taxpayers he represents, simply argues that which is nearly impossible to deny: Mr. Nixon and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authorityhave violated the law by spending millions of taxpayer dollars on the process of trying to build a new football stadium without any input from the public. No hearings. No votes. Nothing.

This is the most disappointing aspect of what is happening as city, regional and state leaders work behind the scenes to try to build a new NFL stadium for the Rams or some other team on the north riverfront property. There are plenty of good arguments to be made in favor of such a project. But at a time of limited funding for schools, roads, transit and other important public needs, there are plenty of arguments against the stadium, too.

But in a desire to put speed before public policy, Mr. Nixon and his pals are bypassing public debate entirely.

That is what makes his argument to dismiss Mr. Barnes’ lawsuit so significant.

In it, Mr. Koster argues that Mr. Nixon is but a bystander, nothing more than a cheerleader on the sideline, root, root, rooting for the home team.

“Plaintiffs allege nothing more than the governor’s use of the bully pulpit to advocate for the construction of a new stadium in St. Louis,” Mr. Koster’s staff argues in a brief seeking dismissal of the lawmaker’s lawsuit.

Compare that to the words in Mr. Miklasz’s column, or Mr. Nixon’s own words as he appeared in news conference after news conference, and interview after interview, putting himself front and center as the key force behind the stadium project.

Mr. Nixon is either the cheerleader or the coach. He can’t be both.

Sadly, this is a pattern for the governor. He is in charge when things are going well, But when an economic development project goes poorly, say the Mamtek plant in Moberly, for instance, which turned out to be nothing but a massive fraud, Mr. Nixon changes his tuneand issues statements like this: “I don’t run the Department of Economic Development.”

The two legal battles over the future NFL stadium are more about process than they are whether one ultimately supports public funding for a stadium project.

In the city, the city of St. Louis, with the attempted support of St. Louis University law professor John Ammann and his students, are right to defend the 2002 law that calls for hearings and a public vote before money is spent on a new stadium project. This is especially true after the Post-Dispatch’s David Hunn revealed this week that according to city budget records, the existing revenues from various sources don’t even cover the full debt of the convention center. These are the sorts of details that would come out in a public hearing.

In Cole County, state lawmakers are merely asking that state law be enforced. That’s not too much to ask.

And Mr. Nixon?

He’s standing on the sideline waving a pom-pom with one hand, begging taxpayers to look at him, while his other hand steals their credit card.

It’s not a pretty picture.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Wasn't the main determining factor the owner wanting to go to her hometown?
'Sorry to laugh but she called Baltimore her adoptive hometown during the negotiations. The guarantees were bigger in St Louis.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
The Corporal’s take on the leaked Coliseum City finance plans – 6/28/2015
Posted on June 28, 2015

As many of us saw yesterday, writer Matthew Artz did a write up titled “Exclusive: Oakland stadium deal “worst by far” for Raiders, experts say“, in which 19 pages of the Coliseum City finance plans were leaked to the Bay Area News Group by , of course, an unnamed source. The plans, put together by Floyd Kephart and New City LLC, were submitted to the City of Oakland and Alameda County last weekend.

Let me first start off by saying that I am personally highly angered by this write up. Artz once again has shown that, just like people before him in the past, the Bay Area Media for the most part does not care about the true nature of the project, let alone the sensitivity of this project, choosing to only share what they deem is the truth or not all the information because of it being what they would consider breaking news or an attention gainer to boost their station’s rating. We as broadcasters are taught to have respect for stories, being truthful and seeking all the facts before reporting, not to mention to respect our sources and NOT SHARING sensitive information that should be told to the public by the people in charge of or tied to it, NOT us the broadcaster or journalist. But sadly, its seems the professional establishment does not care for morals anymore, which is why I for one am glad I still do and will not change from still caring for what we are supposed to when it comes to reporting.

Who leaked the information to Artz and Bay Area New Group?

Now, I could sit here all day and point blame at whoever Matthew’s source was that leaked the information, which by the way is not even the full proposal. Both myself and Bauce Man, as well as many others we know who have been entrenched in efforts to keep these teams in Oakland, wouldn’t be shocked one bit if it was Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley. Miley for months now has show his displeasure in the project, bashed the project on various radio interviews and, for some reason, a distrust of Floyd and New City, all while pushing for a remodeling of the Coliseum for the Raiders, something both Mark Davis and the NFL have already said is a no go and will not work . Regardless if it was him or someone else, whoever was the source of leaking the information really must not give a damn if they end up derailing this project.

“The really important thing is that the City or County or both violated a confidentiality agreement they have with New City and each other. The violation of the confidentiality by releasing this portion of the deliverables before there was any discussion between the parties have damaged New City and placed the entire project in jeopardy,” said Floyd Kephart during an email conversation I had with him earlier this evening. From all the discussions I have had back and forth with him since January, I have absolute zero reason to believe that Floyd is playing Oakland or Alameda County with this project and 100% wants to actually make Coliseum City happen. He even stated during the interview our show did with him last month that if he wasn’t going to actually work on making this project happen, why would he and New City be spending money on it. That is why for myself and others, it really baffles us that someone that is either working with this project or who has access to the project is trying to gain from leaking portions of the finance plans, other than to keep Oakland and the East Bay Region from having something that would make it the envy of cities nation wide.

Artz’ so called “expert”

Another part of this whole nonsense is who Matthew Artz uses as his expert. Who is it you may ask? None other than Marc Ganis, the same man who was dismissed as Coliseum Marketing Director after news of him falsifying his credentials and degrees from Syracuse University broke during the 1990’s. It is in part thanks to Ganis that we, the tax payers of Alameda County, are still stuck with paying off the renovations to the Coliseum as he was the one paid to produce the studies for fan support on premium seats for the renovation project.

So let me get this straight and see how this makes any bloody sense at all to anyone: a guy who is some what the reason it has cost Oakland and Alameda County $400 million since 1996 for the remodeling can be looked to as an “expert” and say Coliseum City is a bad deal when he partly caused one of the worst sports deals in Bay Area history? How can you take a guy like Ganis seriously at all knowing what he did and why he was removed from his position with the Coliseum? Pure and simple, you can not take Marc Ganis seriously at all. In fact, Marc shouldn’t even be opening his mouth at all on this matter. He has no right to say anything after what he did in 1990’s while working here.

Final Thoughts on the matter

So knowing that what was leaked was not the full finance plans, how can it even be judged yet if this really is a bad deal or not? Its not bad for tax payers as they would not be incurring any debt from it. Its not bad for the fans as they would get what they have wanted, which is the teams staying in Oakland. Hell, its not even bad for the teams if all 3 actually got on board with the project as they would have control over their futures and wouldn’t have to deal back and forth drama with Oakland, Alameda County or the JPA anymore.

I know that since the news broke, many Raider fans are up in arms over a share of the team being on the table. If that is the case and it turns out that is part of the proposal, then I must reminded those fans that not only did Mark Davis say back in March he was open to selling a minority stake in franchise, Mark also said in that same write up that he is planning on keeping majority control of the team. I know many are fed up with Mark and I really can’t blame you for that, but at least in all of this mess, he has been the only owner of any of the Oakland teams that has willing shown any interest at all in staying. Many still do not trust Lew Wolff on actually getting something done in Oakland as long as he and John Fisher still own the team, while Joe Lacob and company are gearing up for what could be a drawn out battle with the Mission Bay Alliance over the Warriors’ proposed Mission Bay Arena in San Francisco.

I’ll end things by saying this: the media, regardless how they choose to cover this going forward, are not the ones who have the final say on if it actually happens or all come crashing down. Kephart and New City LLC have done their end of things and I’m sure will continue to do so as they have always hit their deadlines since joining the project back in November of last year. The ones it falls on to get this done are the politicos at both the city and county level to look over and vote on the actual proposal, as well as trying to reach out to the East Bay’s fortune 500 companies to get some funds to help this project as myself and others have said for years and the owners of the teams to finally put their issues aside, come to the table with the city and county and hammer out something to get this project off the ground. All I ask is to be mindful of what is reported on Coliseum City going forward and, regardless how much you feel it has been tested thanks to Artz’ write up, keep faith in that Coliseum City can be done and continue pushing getting new stadiums for these as many have done as members with all the various fan groups over the years or even on their own. That really as fans is all we can do.

http://asfanradio.com/2015/06/28/th...e-leaked-coliseum-city-finance-plans-6282015/
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
The Corporal’s take on the leaked Coliseum City finance plans – 6/28/2015
Posted on June 28, 2015

As many of us saw yesterday, writer Matthew Artz did a write up titled “Exclusive: Oakland stadium deal “worst by far” for Raiders, experts say“, in which 19 pages of the Coliseum City finance plans were leaked to the Bay Area News Group by , of course, an unnamed source. The plans, put together by Floyd Kephart and New City LLC, were submitted to the City of Oakland and Alameda County last weekend.

Let me first start off by saying that I am personally highly angered by this write up. Artz once again has shown that, just like people before him in the past, the Bay Area Media for the most part does not care about the true nature of the project, let alone the sensitivity of this project, choosing to only share what they deem is the truth or not all the information because of it being what they would consider breaking news or an attention gainer to boost their station’s rating. We as broadcasters are taught to have respect for stories, being truthful and seeking all the facts before reporting, not to mention to respect our sources and NOT SHARING sensitive information that should be told to the public by the people in charge of or tied to it, NOT us the broadcaster or journalist. But sadly, its seems the professional establishment does not care for morals anymore, which is why I for one am glad I still do and will not change from still caring for what we are supposed to when it comes to reporting.

Who leaked the information to Artz and Bay Area New Group?

Now, I could sit here all day and point blame at whoever Matthew’s source was that leaked the information, which by the way is not even the full proposal. Both myself and Bauce Man, as well as many others we know who have been entrenched in efforts to keep these teams in Oakland, wouldn’t be shocked one bit if it was Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley. Miley for months now has show his displeasure in the project, bashed the project on various radio interviews and, for some reason, a distrust of Floyd and New City, all while pushing for a remodeling of the Coliseum for the Raiders, something both Mark Davis and the NFL have already said is a no go and will not work . Regardless if it was him or someone else, whoever was the source of leaking the information really must not give a damn if they end up derailing this project.

“The really important thing is that the City or County or both violated a confidentiality agreement they have with New City and each other. The violation of the confidentiality by releasing this portion of the deliverables before there was any discussion between the parties have damaged New City and placed the entire project in jeopardy,” said Floyd Kephart during an email conversation I had with him earlier this evening. From all the discussions I have had back and forth with him since January, I have absolute zero reason to believe that Floyd is playing Oakland or Alameda County with this project and 100% wants to actually make Coliseum City happen. He even stated during the interview our show did with him last month that if he wasn’t going to actually work on making this project happen, why would he and New City be spending money on it. That is why for myself and others, it really baffles us that someone that is either working with this project or who has access to the project is trying to gain from leaking portions of the finance plans, other than to keep Oakland and the East Bay Region from having something that would make it the envy of cities nation wide.

Artz’ so called “expert”

Another part of this whole nonsense is who Matthew Artz uses as his expert. Who is it you may ask? None other than Marc Ganis, the same man who was dismissed as Coliseum Marketing Director after news of him falsifying his credentials and degrees from Syracuse University broke during the 1990’s. It is in part thanks to Ganis that we, the tax payers of Alameda County, are still stuck with paying off the renovations to the Coliseum as he was the one paid to produce the studies for fan support on premium seats for the renovation project.

So let me get this straight and see how this makes any bloody sense at all to anyone: a guy who is some what the reason it has cost Oakland and Alameda County $400 million since 1996 for the remodeling can be looked to as an “expert” and say Coliseum City is a bad deal when he partly caused one of the worst sports deals in Bay Area history? How can you take a guy like Ganis seriously at all knowing what he did and why he was removed from his position with the Coliseum? Pure and simple, you can not take Marc Ganis seriously at all. In fact, Marc shouldn’t even be opening his mouth at all on this matter. He has no right to say anything after what he did in 1990’s while working here.

Final Thoughts on the matter

So knowing that what was leaked was not the full finance plans, how can it even be judged yet if this really is a bad deal or not? Its not bad for tax payers as they would not be incurring any debt from it. Its not bad for the fans as they would get what they have wanted, which is the teams staying in Oakland. Hell, its not even bad for the teams if all 3 actually got on board with the project as they would have control over their futures and wouldn’t have to deal back and forth drama with Oakland, Alameda County or the JPA anymore.

I know that since the news broke, many Raider fans are up in arms over a share of the team being on the table. If that is the case and it turns out that is part of the proposal, then I must reminded those fans that not only did Mark Davis say back in March he was open to selling a minority stake in franchise, Mark also said in that same write up that he is planning on keeping majority control of the team. I know many are fed up with Mark and I really can’t blame you for that, but at least in all of this mess, he has been the only owner of any of the Oakland teams that has willing shown any interest at all in staying. Many still do not trust Lew Wolff on actually getting something done in Oakland as long as he and John Fisher still own the team, while Joe Lacob and company are gearing up for what could be a drawn out battle with the Mission Bay Alliance over the Warriors’ proposed Mission Bay Arena in San Francisco.

I’ll end things by saying this: the media, regardless how they choose to cover this going forward, are not the ones who have the final say on if it actually happens or all come crashing down. Kephart and New City LLC have done their end of things and I’m sure will continue to do so as they have always hit their deadlines since joining the project back in November of last year. The ones it falls on to get this done are the politicos at both the city and county level to look over and vote on the actual proposal, as well as trying to reach out to the East Bay’s fortune 500 companies to get some funds to help this project as myself and others have said for years and the owners of the teams to finally put their issues aside, come to the table with the city and county and hammer out something to get this project off the ground. All I ask is to be mindful of what is reported on Coliseum City going forward and, regardless how much you feel it has been tested thanks to Artz’ write up, keep faith in that Coliseum City can be done and continue pushing getting new stadiums for these as many have done as members with all the various fan groups over the years or even on their own. That really as fans is all we can do.

http://asfanradio.com/2015/06/28/th...e-leaked-coliseum-city-finance-plans-6282015/

It's pretty much what Davis wants but not with Kephart leading it
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The only things Stan can sell these owners if it comes down to a choice between Inglewood and Carson can be summed up in two words. Nostalgia and money. The St Louis Rams once upon a time were the LA Rams and his financing seems solid.
He can claim lack of corporate support, but there are equally solid arguments that it's his team's own fault.
He can claim that he's the best choice to succeed, but his team record can't top the Chargers, and the only owner who hasn't set out to poison his own fan base is Davis.
He can claim the most fan support but we've seen as many polls claiming that for the Raiders as the Rams.
He can claim it makes the most sense, but that's only true for him. Losing the 21st market and leaving SD and Oakland trapped in rotting stadiums doesn't seem to make much sense at all.
I think he realizes that his finances are the only thing he's really got going, hence the "generous" offer to help SD and Oakland get new stadiums. What's he going to do there? Sit the cities and the owners down and play Dr Phil? I still think it's likely he succeeds, but it will come from St Louis or Carson falling thru, or SD or Oakland coming thru. I don't think for a moment that he wants a situation where he has to outsell another two owners, especially if the Riverfront obstacles are removed.

The post of this long rambling post? Every reason he has for moving has an equally compelling counterpoint. It comes down to finances, his one real advantage.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The fans and university professor who tried to have the Mayor removed from the case.

You mean get him removed from the case because he was FOR the stadium and stacking the deck in a dog and pony show court case? That is in no way similar to the San Diego lawsuit.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
No, he said that the Chargers aren't rubbing their face in it by playing in the place they are trying to move to. You may disagree, but that didn't warrant the staving children in Africa lecture. That was my point.

I still stand by it, Chargers fans feel just as alienated and screwed over by Spanos and have every right to complain, practice or no practice.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Too many pages ago... but it was brought up that the Rams support has been waning of late.

I suggested that maybe it was due to the product...

You continue to suggest improvement ought to be enough to stop the slide... that this improvement might help Kroenke suggest he's leaving because, despite improving the product, support continues to fall.

I (and others) are suggesting that, despite "improvement", the product is still lacking enough that there isn't a compelling reason for corporations to continue to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for a suite that people aren't inclined to visit because the product on the field is lacking... despite the "improvement".

In other words, there hasn't been enough improvement to cause a ground swell of support (yet)... either at the consumer or corporate level.

To think people (consumers and corporations) should continue to spend considerable amounts of money on a team that has gone backwards the past three years is hard for me to grasp.

You're a corporate suite holder and you're having trouble entertaining customers because they don't want to come to the games because the team has gone 7-8-1, 7-9 and 6-10 the past three years.
You wouldn't seriously consider selling that suite? Y
ou'd keep paying thousands for an empty suite?
I'm thinking not?

One last thought... at least in the case of the suites, those are not "fans"... they don't live on "potential"... many do not drink kool-aid... they want to be part of a winner!

I think if part of Kroenke's case for leaving is that he's improved this product so much but the support is still not strong... well, I think he'd be barking at the moon.

I'm not saying I blame them, I'm saying that if the city's solution is "Tell the Rams to put a better product on the field" I don't think it'll be a very compelling argument to convince a bunch of guys to go against one of their own and force him to stay. The market studies aren't bad, and the Rams are active in the community, Kroenke isn't going to argue on their behalf, it's going to be on the city.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
You mean get him removed from the case because he was FOR the stadium and stacking the deck in a dog and pony show court case? That is in no way similar to the San Diego lawsuit.

Didn't say it was similar - just pointing out he's also had people to try to remove him too.

Although I think its pretty funny if we're gonna start comparing which owners have been alienating their fans - think the Rams win that one hands down. I mean hell corporate sales aren't wanting to commit their money until they hear a commitment from Stan to St.Louis... Money talks, and I think that speaks volumes about how people feel about Stan's true intentions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.